Talk:Free web hosting service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Repeat information
Forum-based free hosting and Post for Hosting say the same thing should one be removed?
[edit] Possibly Flawed - Some Hope
There are virtually no free webhosting directories that are not skewed/paid for by one provider, or are hopelessly out of date, or make wildly inaccurate claims about services, or fail to list new providers, etc.
If not getting rid of this category altogether, some minimum criteria should be agreed on - at least.
There are thousands of free webhosts, most of which barely work.
I would say that in order to be listed here, in addition to wikipidias guidelines about commercial entities/spam/etc, a free provider should:
- be at least a year old
- have an alexa ranking better than 300K or so
- either be listed in dmoz or yahoo
- must be accepting new users
That keeps the list under 30 providers. And it provides solid grounds for editing out "fly-by-night" sites, while allowing new providers to work out their kinks and get listed in a fairly short time (1 year is all it takes to meet all the criteria above).
That being said, the idea of using wikipedia to maintain reviews and links to free webhosts is probably flawed. I would guess that the community editing nature of wikipedia will be frequently exploited.
[edit] ClickHereFree.com
Why do people keep removing the link to ClickHereFree.com? It's not link spam, ClickHereFree is a listing of Web hosts. If links to other web host directories are allowed, then why isn't this one?
--Daniel15 06:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- "The Official Free Webhost Directory" (emphasis mine) may strike some as disingenuous.
- If there's a domain name that people will immediately associate with spam, it would be clickHereFree.com.
- Ads on the linked page.
- I'm not saying any of this is a killer criterion, but the sum of it does it for me. Plus I tend to be more strict on a page with a subject that basically screams out "put your link spam here". Otherwise it becomes even harder to draw a line. Rl 06:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Advice
I'd like to set up a small personal web site that is:
- hosted free
- free of ads
- about 1–2Mb
- ideally on a subdomain rather than a folder URL (i.e. http://mysite.theirsite.com instead of http://theirsite.com/mysite), although that's not so important
Can anyone recommend off the major player(s), if any, in this area of hosting? There are just too many entries in the directory to evaluate all of them.
Thanks for the help. Ben Arnold 23:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
See your user talk page --Daniel15 05:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Try this: 20 Top Free Web Hosts By User Ratings Dragix 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Internet service providers
Internet service providers are usuallly refered to Internet connection providers. Is it used in hosting context ? So do this article require that category ? --Soft coderTalk 15:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I just removed this article from that category. You're right, it shouldn't have been in that category. That category is a list of different web companies. --Daniel15 09:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Whipping into shape
I've whipped this article into shape and made it part of the Internet hosting service series. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 22:38Z
[edit] Forum-based free hosting
"Some free hosts require posting in a forum." Can somebody briefly explain to me why some free hosts require regular forum contributions from members, please? Tomid 17:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
They don't. It is optional. Dragix 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
some require you to post in their forums so they know you aren't a bot or you aren't going to make spam accounts Bob Plano 02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Shared Hosting?
Most Free Webhosts do shared hosting. So, merging them might be a good idea. N4l 00:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
While free web hosting is a form of web hosting that is "shared" (many users/websites on one server), there are also usually great differences from "shared hosting" (which most generally describes paid hosting that is shared by many users on a time-based contract), so would be best kept separate, yet interlinked.
I think they should not be merged becouse shared hosting is a way to set up the server while free hosting is only about the price. I could set up 500 servers on 500 different IP#s and let people use them for free. Instead the free web hosting article could say something like "a common way is [shared hosting]"
Merge the two? That doesn't make any sense at all. Shared hosting is incredibly common these days, paid or not. It is simply more effective than a dedicated machine for a tiny website or blog. Whoever suggested to combination was not thinking clearly at all.
here is a free host www.level6studios.com
