Thought on bluehost

[charlesgan]

not my prefered hosting company. not my prefer affiliate system as well.

there is some others better hosting: lunarpage, hostgator, etc

[VetHost_com]

Originally Posted by coastside

WWD after reading our lengthy explanation of the problems experienced with Bluehost, agreed to release the domain to GKG. Did the problems stop there? NO! When we had GKG.net re-submit the transfer request, Bluehost again sent email to the client, expressing their concern as to whether the domain transfer should be done and asked the client to access the Bluhost side and go through a rediculous set of steps to process the transfer.

I am in no way affiliated with bluehost, but the issue was not theirs to begin with. The domain registrar was WWD (GoDaddy) and not the hosting company. I've been hosting web sites since 1997, and have been registering domains as a reseller (and not an ICANN affiliated registrar) for years, and I know it can be confusing for the uninitiated. IMHO, it's the web host's responsibility to explain things like that to their customers. It's just good business.

[don@mtnhealthinsuran]

I have had a very good experience with bluehost so far. I am not technical and the tech support guys have allways helped me fix my problem. Only once in the 8 or so months has thier system failed - email went down for about an hour.
The waiting time for tech support is either none or under two minutes.

I don't understand all the stats that are provided, but am glad that they are there. Someday I may find them usefull.

[yser]

My experience with Bluehost: 1 year + 197 days (almost 2 years).

The following review was DELETED and BANNED from Bluehost forum. They also BAN users who post negative reviews about them on their forum and also give the "we're not bluehost employees" bullcrap.

I just want my voices heard.

1. It doesn't matter how much you pretending to give: unlimited bandwidth (3000 Gbs), unlimited space (300 Gbs), unlimited domains, putting a very LOW CPU usage limit nullifies everything else. And this fact of low CPU limit is no where to be found.

Someone here (perhaps a moderator, not sure) pointed to a post about this. Yes, I appreciate it, but it's NOT on the frontpage of bluehost, and therefore it's almost like a scam, similar to comcast saying unlimited usage, but they really have a cap for heavy user. If it's the way it is, then make it CLEARLY VISIBLE for everyone to see. (and for Comcast if capping affects only .01% of users, then stop advertising unlimited usage)

2. Unlimited space (300 Gbs) is BS when users are allowed to have basically text files. How the heck can one fill 300 Gbs with text files? No audio, videos, ie. huge files of any kind.

I once put 5 Gbs of audio files for storage only (private use, no downloading permitted, no public access whatsoever) and was suspended without ANY warning and was told to remove them.

SUSPENDING A SITE WITHOUT WARNING IS UNACCEPTABLE WHEN DISALLOWED USAGE IS CLOSE TO NONE.

I don't have a problem with disallowing copyrighted files (because it's a business model) but I want everyone to be aware of this fact.

3. LOW CPU LIMIT:

Another new thing I just got from reading about CPU limit is.

Moderators here and Bluehost employees do not have the right to tell users what users should or should not do with their domain as long as it's not against ToS, ie. running PHP scripts on the servers or letting server resizes images.

Users purchased the right to use the server, regardless of how cheap, even if it's 1-cent account. You cannot tell them things like letting server resizing images is "retarded" and they shouldn't do that.

And also there is no such things as "Other users shouldn't suffer because of the use of your scripts"

WTF? They purchased the right to use the server. Other users suffered because BLUEHOST ran out of resources or crowded things up beyond BH's limit.

What they complain is THE LOW CPU LIMIT which has everything to do with BLUEHOST and nothing to do with anyone else.

I perfectly understand the argument of whoever said that, but those are two different things. They purchased a 1-cent account, so what? They complain that the LOW CPU LIMIT is WAY TOO LOW for even a 1-cent account, which has nothing to do with anyone else.

4. How low is too low.

I have a blog, 1000+ entries. Every time I publish statically up to 200 posts, BH suspended my account saying CPU usage is overboard. That's 200 posts/1000+ <=== that's is wayyyy too low of a limit. I use the same publishing platform as anyone out there, so no, don't say such things like poor coded scripts.

And when I publish dynamically using PHP, whenever I load multiple pages at once, BH also suspended my account. Yes, that's way too low of a limit.

I don't believe my site has reached the dedicated server yet, because it's a private site and only a few users have access to it.

5. The shield of "Moderators are not Bluehost employees". If you use this shield, which is legitimate btw, then please stop recommending solutions or offering unhelpful comments AS IF you're a Bluehost employee.

If you're not Bluehost employee then no one has to listen to you. So let users complain about the LOW CPU LIMIT and discuss it back and forth without you trying to jump in telling them what they should or should not do with their account or intimidating them by statements like they're using the resources of other users.

6. If it's a user-to-user forum, then all of these complains should stay and never be deleted (unless they violate the exceptions to freedom of speech). User-to-user forum are the types of forums where users can comment negatively about the company as much as they want without being afraid that their comments will be deleted (much like the broadband forums where users complain about Comcast).

Moderators moderate the forums so freedom of speech is respected. Moderators (especially if they claim they're not associated with Bluehost) + Bluehost employees shouldn't try to filter comments to positively influence Bluehost's image.

Yser
temp03 {at} gmail dot com

[richardvan1]

U know i here people asking others allot regarding what there experiences were with a host.

The problem with this is each individual webmaster has there own needs & requirements in a host.

A regular user that has a small personal site would probly have no complaints even with a really bad host

because - they use hardly any resources, low band low disk space

Its when u get a user that has many high demanding scripts and or programs that are server intensive however are still within ur package .. these are those that usually run into problems

A easy way for u to find if a host is for u is to request a trial or test account .. Yes its possible, even if there site doesnt say they will, 90% of all companies will give u a test account for a month or so if it meens that potentially they may get anouther client..

Just Ask Them !

[richardvan1]

Originally Posted by yser

My experience with Bluehost: 1 year + 197 days (almost 2 years).

The following review was DELETED and BANNED from Bluehost forum. They also BAN users who post negative reviews about them on their forum and also give the "we're not bluehost employees" bullcrap.

I just want my voices heard.

1. It doesn't matter how much you pretending to give: unlimited bandwidth (3000 Gbs), unlimited space (300 Gbs), unlimited domains, putting a very LOW CPU usage limit nullifies everything else. And this fact of low CPU limit is no where to be found.

Someone here (perhaps a moderator, not sure) pointed to a post about this. Yes, I appreciate it, but it's NOT on the frontpage of bluehost, and therefore it's almost like a scam, similar to comcast saying unlimited usage, but they really have a cap for heavy user. If it's the way it is, then make it CLEARLY VISIBLE for everyone to see. (and for Comcast if capping affects only .01% of users, then stop advertising unlimited usage)

2. Unlimited space (300 Gbs) is BS when users are allowed to have basically text files. How the heck can one fill 300 Gbs with text files? No audio, videos, ie. huge files of any kind.

I once put 5 Gbs of audio files for storage only (private use, no downloading permitted, no public access whatsoever) and was suspended without ANY warning and was told to remove them.

SUSPENDING A SITE WITHOUT WARNING IS UNACCEPTABLE WHEN DISALLOWED USAGE IS CLOSE TO NONE.

I don't have a problem with disallowing copyrighted files (because it's a business model) but I want everyone to be aware of this fact.

3. LOW CPU LIMIT:

Another new thing I just got from reading about CPU limit is.

Moderators here and Bluehost employees do not have the right to tell users what users should or should not do with their domain as long as it's not against ToS, ie. running PHP scripts on the servers or letting server resizes images.

Users purchased the right to use the server, regardless of how cheap, even if it's 1-cent account. You cannot tell them things like letting server resizing images is "retarded" and they shouldn't do that.

And also there is no such things as "Other users shouldn't suffer because of the use of your scripts"

WTF? They purchased the right to use the server. Other users suffered because BLUEHOST ran out of resources or crowded things up beyond BH's limit.

What they complain is THE LOW CPU LIMIT which has everything to do with BLUEHOST and nothing to do with anyone else.

I perfectly understand the argument of whoever said that, but those are two different things. They purchased a 1-cent account, so what? They complain that the LOW CPU LIMIT is WAY TOO LOW for even a 1-cent account, which has nothing to do with anyone else.

4. How low is too low.

I have a blog, 1000+ entries. Every time I publish statically up to 200 posts, BH suspended my account saying CPU usage is overboard. That's 200 posts/1000+ <=== that's is wayyyy too low of a limit. I use the same publishing platform as anyone out there, so no, don't say such things like poor coded scripts.

And when I publish dynamically using PHP, whenever I load multiple pages at once, BH also suspended my account. Yes, that's way too low of a limit.

I don't believe my site has reached the dedicated server yet, because it's a private site and only a few users have access to it.

5. The shield of "Moderators are not Bluehost employees". If you use this shield, which is legitimate btw, then please stop recommending solutions or offering unhelpful comments AS IF you're a Bluehost employee.

If you're not Bluehost employee then no one has to listen to you. So let users complain about the LOW CPU LIMIT and discuss it back and forth without you trying to jump in telling them what they should or should not do with their account or intimidating them by statements like they're using the resources of other users.

6. If it's a user-to-user forum, then all of these complains should stay and never be deleted (unless they violate the exceptions to freedom of speech). User-to-user forum are the types of forums where users can comment negatively about the company as much as they want without being afraid that their comments will be deleted (much like the broadband forums where users complain about Comcast).

Moderators moderate the forums so freedom of speech is respected. Moderators (especially if they claim they're not associated with Bluehost) + Bluehost employees shouldn't try to filter comments to positively influence Bluehost's image.

Yser
temp03 {at} gmail dot com

Would u mind if i use the above material on my site?

[Wpatters1229]

Wow! I was trying to setup Katharion for anti-spam service and was using AIT Hosting which is the WORST on the planet and takes your money. Anyhow AIT was trying to charge $20 to do a simple MX record change so in the process of dealing with Katharion which are the best, it was suggested trying BlueHost. They worked with my over the phone to get all my email problems fixed and I moved all my client site files over without a hitch. The DNS was up and running in just a few minutes...at least enough for me to see that all was well. They changed to a new control panel right after I moved and it is great. The one hosting plan is so much better than all the BS reseller plans at AIT plus SO much cheaper. So far I have no complaints for any of my clients. Speed is fine, FTP is great, all the features and tools are great. I come from being a retired IBMer and understand support. So far they are doing it right. Timely, honest no BS. If they can't help they don't try and pee on your leg and tell you it's raining!

Cheers

[alemcherry]

Originally Posted by Wpatters1229

... and was using AIT Hosting which is the WORST on the planet..

I can confirm that AIT is the worst among 81-0 host I have personal experince with. We used to have a dedicated server with them. The service was pathetic and we had some serious issues before moving out to rackspace. That was way back in 2004, but still I will recommend anyone from using their service.

[Wpatters1229]

I wish I could be on every forum in the world and ruin their business. They are as deadly as a computer virus. The fact that their service sucks they also try to screw you out of money.
I wonder how long it will be before we get some laws on how to conduct this type of business. The Internet might be like the wild west was but at least there you could call someone out and shoot them.

[biggest_hosting]

Originally Posted by Janet

I am considering switching my hosting to bluehost. Does anyone have any experience with this company, good or bad?

Try checking their reviews on webhostingstuff.com

[wayzee]

i am using bluehost & have no big problems so far, up till now i think its good hosting

[webdesignonabudget]

There are far too many horror stories attached with Blue host.
It's really quite terrible. It's cheap that's true, but you get what you pay for.

Far too much downtime.

I switched over to dream host, which is infinitely more reliable. And i found this promocode for it which got me $30 off which pretty made it cost the same as Bluehost but with faaaaaaaaaar more reliability.

You can follow what I did if you want, this is the promo code for $30 off:
JILLERS

Hope it helps someone.

[crazypenguin]

I would rank Bluehost in the top ten WORST hosting companies. My experience has been nothing but problems one way or another with Bluehost. My email was down 2/3 of the time on one of my accounts for almost a month. Read about it here.
Even after they said it was fixed I still had problems receiving emails. Without the ability to send email notifications the website was worthless to me. Bluehost never tried to make any compensation to me for the down time problem. I finally ended up using a gmail account to get around my email notification problem for my forum.

On another Bluehost account I also had email problems and the website loaded very slowly. This may have been due to hard drive being nearly full. Look here.
It is my opinion that Bluehost crams too many accounts on one server therefore overloading the resources on each server.

I also witnessed many periods of downtimes. It was not uncommon to be down for an 8 hour duration which for me is very unacceptable.

The bottom line from my experience with Bluehost it did not work for me. I feel Bluehost has ripped me off as they promise an implied quality of service which they could not provide.

[~ServerPoint~]

All big companies have as good as bad reviews. This is life.

[webrehash]

I can't say anything about bluehost, but I've had good success with Hostgator.

[k4l3b]

I dont understand why some of you guys dont like it, bluehost is awesome.

[~ServerPoint~]

I dont understand why some of you guys dont like it, bluehost is awesome.

As rule your ownexperience is not the same as public one

[Bob Barr]

Originally Posted by ~ServerPoint~

As rule your ownexperience is not the same as public one

With around a million hosted domains, Bluehost must be doing something right. I've hosted several sites with them for over a year and have been very pleased with their support and services.

[crazypenguin]

Originally Posted by k4l3b

I dont understand why some of you guys dont like it, bluehost is awesome.

It may have been "awesome" for you but not for me.

Bluehost from my experience has been one of the very worst hosting companies I have used.

My Bluehost review.

So do you have a domain where you can verify to the forum you have actually used Bluehost?

[crazypenguin]

Originally Posted by Bob Barr

With around a million hosted domains, Bluehost must be doing something right. I've hosted several sites with them for over a year and have been very pleased with their support and services.

No doubt Bluehost is a genius at marketing. But a stellar marketing program does not by any means equate to stellar quality of product. In my opinion if Bluehost / Hostmonster would even put one tenth of their attention in to the quality of hosting they could provide as they do their marketing they would be outstanding. But the reality from my experience is Bluehost puts out pure crap for quality as a web hosting company. On three separate accounts I had major problems of excessive downtime, extremely slow loading of web pages, SQL DB problems, email didn't work, and the dreaded CPU exceeds errors shutting down my site that had little to no traffic!!!