Would you trust small and relatively new webhosting companies?

[Dotster]

Hello.
I'm interested in your opinion. What do you think about new companies. I have seen everywhere that all prefer big and popular web hosting companies, but what about smal companies? Can I trust www.routhost.com, www.siteocity.com or www.WebsiteSource.com etc?

[damien_ls]

I can't really comment on your specific examples, but in general I would say that you can often find benefits from small hosting providers, as well as some drawbacks.

POTENTIAL Benefits

• Personal service - good change you'll always deal with the same person / small group of people, so they know your needs and you know how they work etc.; less need to fully explain your site/purpose with every interaction with them (e.g. every support ticket you open);
• Flexibility - someone recently mentioned (perhaps on this forum?) that small hosts are more likely to "bend over backwards" to keep you as a customer, and to gain your custom in the first place; if a provider has 20 customers, losing 1 means they lose a big chunk of their overall userbase, but if they have 2000 then losing 1 might not be as much of an issue to them (incorrect attitude, but we all know it happens);

However, as I said, their may be some drawbacks too...

POTENTIAL drawbacks

• There may be more chance that the company folds due to financial insecurity - this can happen with virtually any company though, so IMO size is not always your best protection against this;
• Due to lack of experience, fixing issues may take more time, and they may cause some problems due to lack of foresight etc. (some new/small providers may have plenty of experience - e.g. if they formed from/by former employees from some other provider);
• Small usually = less power with suppliers; if there's some issue in the DC or with a software supplier, there's a good chance a small provider won't have much clout and may be at the back of the queue... money talks - big providers have more influence.
• Lack of strong technical support coverage - 24/7 support is usually out of the question (even if they advertise it, beware that hosting providers can lie to you! - I know... shock!);

That's just a quick list off the top of my head - I'm sure there are lots more that people can think of on either side of the argument. The other point about the above is that they are not issues that exclusively affect small providers.

IMO, the number of points on either side doesn't pre-determine the outcome. For example, you may consider the flexibility and personal service of small providers way better than the alternative, and be willing to work with slightly less in-depth support cover because the shallow cover that you have is actually pretty good etc.

Finally (I will submit this post soon!), I'd warn people against judging a provider as "small" or "new" just because they haven't heard of them before. With the shear number of providers out there (worldwide) it is probably more likely that any given provider you come across has been around for a while, but perhaps just in a different market (e.g. different country etc.) - it doesn't mean they're new to the market.

I'm also aware of a number of providers much newer than us (layershift) that have been formed from some top employees from major players in the industry - hence they have lots of experience, money, and influence at their disposal.

[charlesgan]

i will never go for small or new hosting provider anymore.
not even those that selling cheap.

i look for those that age 5 and above. with domain hosted more than 50k-100k

[alemcherry]

I will not probably go with a small one, unless recommended by a friend or someone who had an experience with them.

[CapsLOCK]

I might commit some of my websites to small companies. But serious ones just for big and professional like Wirenine.com or other professional company.

[damien_ls]

I'm interested... how would you define a small hosting company?

How would you know whether or not a company meets that definition of small; often you don't know how many employees a provider has, or even how many servers etc. the provider has.

Obviously there are a handful of significant/very large providers with multiple purpose built facilities, but I think you'd do yourself a dis-service to automatically rule all other providers out if you only considered that handful for any particularly project?

[Sprited]

The way i see it, you've gonna start some were, havn't you?

[livewiremaxx]

I have been with Rescue Hosting http://www.rescuehosting.com for about 4 years now, they are a smaller company - and the thing I like about them is that I get the service and attention that I need. They do a lot of one on one. Even when I needed help just figuring out how to code some stuff with my own site.

[CapsLOCK]

Agree. Small companies are the ones that don't take any your time and love you. Examples more than enough. I have been in touch with such kind company www.ahosting.biz

[podcast]

Originally Posted by damien_ls

I'm interested... how would you define a small hosting company?

How would you know whether or not a company meets that definition of small; often you don't know how many employees a provider has, or even how many servers etc. the provider has.

That's a very valid point. I think that on the hosting market there's a drastic opposition between a handful of "big" hosting companies and the rest of hosting companies without any regard to their size or experience on the market. "Big brothers" have thousands of clients and actively promote themselves, these companies are usually given as "Ten Top companies" in the majority of hosting directories. And the rule is simple, if you aren't on the top, you are small and new.
As for the companies mentioned here:
Wirenine.com is 3 years old, not quite sure about the number of servers. Don't think they small.
Ahosting.biz started 3 years ago, and seem to be a medium-sized company. My guesses are based on the number of posts about them.

[rontol]

Originally Posted by Dotster

Hello.
I'm interested in your opinion. What do you think about new companies. I have seen everywhere that all prefer big and popular web hosting companies, but what about smal companies? Can I trust www.routhost.com, www.siteocity.com or www.WebsiteSource.com etc?

It's depend on the user himself,if he or she is a newbie i think they can trust them easily.

But once they get cheated or having a bad experience with the host,the'll run away and be carefull for the next time

I personnaly do trust small/new companies for other purpose,but not for my business hosting (if i have any business)

[podcast]

Wanted to add: the company I've been with hqhost.net started 6 years ago, this fact was important for me when I signed with them, however, I didn't know anything about its size, not quite sure about it even now.

[Dotster]

Hello guys!
I agree with you. Company must be proffesional. And it is different to determine big company or small. I think that we have to trust cmpanies have proffesional websites and at least online representative as wirenine or accuwebhosting.com.
First impression mut be good.

[bin_asc]

Small companies want to get clients, so they try to diverse their offers and also provide close-client support. IMHO, some are worth it, but it is known some really don`t invest in even making a website ( they just use templatemonster templates, add a bit of text, install a billing script and put the system on auto - bad idea...)

[John Scott]

Too many web hosts are new today, gone tomorrow.

I'll stick with the hosts that have an established track record.

[Karooki]

I think it's better to start your business not with new hosting companies but with the reputable ones that are in the web hosting market for a long while.

[eli roos]

Originally Posted by Dotster

Hello.
I'm interested in your opinion. What do you think about new companies. I have seen everywhere that all prefer big and popular web hosting companies, but what about smal companies? Can I trust www.routhost.com, www.siteocity.com or www.WebsiteSource.com etc?

i'm using a company, not sure how long they have been around, but am having good luck with them! have had a couple of issues but they were resolved within 24 hours.

plus since i am so new to all of this i find them very helpful.

you might want to check em www.barakhostings.com out in addition to the others you are looking at.

eli roos

[chicgeek]

Originally Posted by eli roos

i'm using a company, not sure how long they have been around, but am having good luck with them! have had a couple of issues but they were resolved within 24 hours.

plus since i am so new to all of this i find them very helpful.

you might want to check em www.barakhostings.com out in addition to the others you are looking at.

eli roos

Not by chance your own website, right?

[CascadeHosting]

Well I myself run a small hosting service and it's been online for nearly a yr and a half now. I've kept the service very private so far though because I haven't had the time to invest but now that I do, I'm happy to say that the benefits depend on the administrator. I focus on helping my customers as much as possible. My track record isn't exactly long but I know my service won't go out for a long time.

[shirker]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Too many web hosts are new today, gone tomorrow.

I'll stick with the hosts that have an established track record.

And an established track record is 2 or 4 or 5 years? Those highly recommended and having more positive than negative reviews www.asmallorange.com, www.wirenine.com and www.accuwebhosting have about 3 years of experience. What's more relevant then the number of years or number of pleased customers?