Talk:Free web hosting service

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Repeat information

Forum-based free hosting and Post for Hosting say the same thing should one be removed?

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There are virtually no free webhosting directories that are not skewed/paid for by one provider, or are hopelessly out of date, or make wildly inaccurate claims about services, or fail to list new providers, etc.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.

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See your user talk page --Daniel15 05:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: 20 Top Free Web Hosts By User Ratings Dragix 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could try FreeWebHosting.UK.To? liquider

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 coder^Talk 15:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

They don't. It is optional. Dragix 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

On some sites, forum posts are rated by quality - this gets the free host user-generated customer service, keeping their costs down. Many free hosts are run by one person in their spare time, and can't afford full time support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.245.174 (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That and also forum posts provide content, which is then used to pump ads with keywords, which in turn then create revenue for the owner. --liquider 12:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquider (talk • contribs) [reply]

Merge Shared Hosting?

Most Free Webhosts do shared hosting. So, merging them might be a good idea. N4l 00:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

HostAdFree.org

This link is to a noncommercial site and is far more valid than the link to Yahoo, who charges $300 per submission and primarily lists companies that flood user free hosting pages with advertising for cheap loans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.245.174 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist.

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote HostAdFree.org . Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under IP 24.211.245.174, consist entirely of adding external links to HostAdFree.org and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be HostAdFree.org related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your IP are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see the welcome page and Wikipedia:Civility. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote HostAdFree.org right? ---- Hu12 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hostadfree is a manually maintained noncommercial resource that is appropriate for this article in every way and does not violate any of the guidelines for Wikipedia. Nowhere do you address this.

You merely remove the link and then threaten blacklisting. Your argument regarding my history of edits is not convincing. I have had to defend, re-add and argue this link against many editors. This article is highly contentious and there are hundreds of commercial spam links added every month, so it's understandable that people remove it (usually they are just other spammers).

I deal with testing and validating over 150 submissions per month, 99% of which are spam. There is nothing commercial about the site, it is merely something I do in order for there to be a decent list of advert-free hosting. This Wikipedia article is an appropriate place to link to it, since there is no other comparable resources anywhere else on the Internet.

I would appreciate if you consider adding the link bank, and/or address these points - and make a serious case for it's noninclusion.

(Even if you agree, it will get deleted within the month by a spammer) 24.211.245.174 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC) — 24.211.245.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (He has not time to do so, this article requires constant vigilance) The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Points were addressed above. Its inapropriate for the article. Erik, your contributions on wikipedia as a whole are to promote HostAdFree.org. This is an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT--Hu12 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you merely attack the credentials of the poster, and continue to ignore the merits of the post. 1. It is noncommercial (not addresed), 2. It is relevant, and unique (not addressed), 3. It is a useful resource for which there is no better substitution (not addressed) 24.211.245.174 (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that most of your edits seem to be the removal of content - followed shortly by Ad Hominem supporting arguments, and you actually contribute very little as well. While I agree with *some* of your edits, I can see that your talk page, and the talk pages of the pages you edit are littered with users who disagree with your edits, the arguments of which often seem quite legitimate. 24.211.245.174 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Directory Project does NOT list sites that don't put ads on users pages. That's why I created the free hosting tracker - because ODP and Yahoo listed sites are riddled with broken/nonfunctioning sites or sites that smother your content with ads. ODP and Yahoo don't do this. Maybe they should, but they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.245.174 (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wiki classifieds!

my link keeps getting deleted, but i am linking to what it says i can link to...

--151.198.114.195 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007(UTC)

Your link adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article, as mentioned under our External Links guidelines, in addition, Wikipedia is not a directory. You may not advertise your service here. --Versa geek 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dmoz links

IMHO, the dmoz link is misleading. It is an outdated list of providers, most of which spam their users or smother user pages with ads. Linking to DMOZ implies some sort of encyclopedic value or utility. Given that this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for web hosts, the link to DMOZ is inappropriate. 24.211.245.174 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your site listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. DMOZ is a human-edited directory, perhaps your concerns should be directed to them and their editors. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ is largely edited by people whose interested are self promotion, which is specifically against wikipedia's rules. I have several sites listed in DMOZ, and I am an editor, but the politics of DMOZ are awful. Wikipedia doesn't need to link to DMOZ, people know it exists. I have no need to "self-promote" or "get linked", I have no commercial interest to do so - despite accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.245.174 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ doesn't test to see if the sites they list actually provide free hosting. Nor whether they spam their users, etc. There are many good free hosting directories that test these things and more - and a casual search will turn them up. If you are an editor on DMOZ...linking to a DMOZ category that you edit should be considered self promotion, and you should not be doing it. This means you Hu12. 24.211.245.174 (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get more info on Google Sites and Google Page Creator?

It would be very helpful if someone put together a simple comparison of what you can do with Google Page Creator, as opposed to Google Sites. For instance:

Do you need to download and install Google Apps to create & edit a Pages website? A Sites webpage? As I understand it, "yes" for Sites and "no" for Pages, but I may be wrong.

Do you need to download and install Google Apps merely to read a Google Sites website? A Google pages webpage? As I understand it, no for both, but I may be wrong.

Google Sites describes itself as a website creation tool for businesses and schools, for example company intranets. Does this in any way limit its usefulness as a general webpage, available to anyone browsing the world wide web? (As far as I know, the answer is "no", but I may be wrong.)

If we wish, can we make Google Sites, or Google Pages, readable only to those with company/school e-mail addresses?

Is Sites meant to be more of wiki (i.e. editable by many or all users), while Pages is designed to be more or a traditional webpage (only editable by the site creator, or someone designated with editing priviliges.) ?

RK (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison page?

I have an idea: How about a comparison page like Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients? --Vergency (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Comparison of webhosts? --Vergency (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, Comparison of web hosting services was created earlier today. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Thanks for that. I suppose the search feature isn't updated immediately, as I couldn't find that. --Vergency (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note to the reader: that article was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web hosting services) Shinobu (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very biased...

Well, this points out that free hosts are worse than paid hosts... Sometimes true, usually not. It says, these may have blahblahblah limitations, though may not, giving an impression that paid hosts blow others out of the water. I think this should be deleted or rewriten...

Codster925 (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "Advertising - Selling online advertising on the customer sites is generally considered a fair trade - the reasoning is that high traffic sites are more expensive to host, but the additional traffic allows for additional ad impressions therefore covering the cost.". Most users don't want ads and always try use scripts to block or hide the ads. And advertising covering the costs is yet to be seen, no proof more users = more income from ads = self sustainable host. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editordeartigos (talk • contribs) 10:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section explaining the downsides of free hosting:

script restrictions, such as php memory limit or php safe mode
file type restrictions, such as forbidden exe or not allowing certain extensions, which in turn, render certain scripts unusable
database restrictions, such as one database only or max database size
unlimited traffic or hundreads of GBs for free or unlimited traffic for 1$ doesn't exist, the host might offer it, but as soon as one tries to overuse thinking that unlimited = infinite, the host is suspended or one's account is suspended
server load restriction. multiple ppl hosted on one machine, if one or more users put a high load on that machine, everyone hosted there goes down due to high cpu usage
language or country restrictions. The admin canot afford the risk of having some user from a distant country using his/her services for illegal activities, so he/she restricts his/her services to one language or one country. The most common IP range bans that I've seen include Latin America, Middle East and Asia.

Editordeartigos (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-branded/Reseller Link Examples

I believe that at this time it may be pertinent to allow for some external links to such services in context and provided it gives an overview to the user visiting those locations of the differences in the methods, technology and marketing of those services.

At this time the article in general is rather weak but I am trying to improve it over time by expanding on what I feel were some short points of free web hosting services of which this was one of those points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.17.112 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs verifiable reliable sources to support encyclopedic content, not links to reseller services. se also WP:NOT and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia--Hu12 (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]