[edit]: Competition is desperate

According to this host, HG's script security is not very good. Are these claims true? "HostGator runs scripts as nobody:nobody, making the individual script security on the border of laughable."

Originally Posted by GatorJamyn

[edit by: GatorJamyn:] No. The statement we run scripts as nobody:nobody is an outright lie, and BlueHost is absolutely aware of that fact. We've contacted them multiple times to get them to correct the statement/chart, so there's no excuse. For example:

We switched to phpSuExec in early 2006. Regardless, their own evidence shows we were running phpSuExec when they created that page/made the snapshot.

On their own page:

HostGator Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635.SR1.2 mod_ssl/2.8.28 OpenSSL/0.9.7a PHP-CGI/0.1b. PHP/4.4.4

So the BlueHost network guys somehow decided to say we're running php as nobody (non-CGI), yet their own page shows we're running php in CGI mode, which is 100% contradictory. Even the php.net site says, "Using PHP as a CGI binary is an option for setups that for some reason do not wish to integrate PHP as a module into server software (like Apache), or will use PHP with different kinds of CGI wrappers to create safe chroot and setuid environments for scripts."


Either:

a) they dont know how apache modules work (whoops?)
b) They can't read an apache signature line (uh oh)
c) They didn't actually check or read anything, and just made stuff up (not good)
d) They feel they need to lie to gain a competitive edge, and they don't feel their current offerings are better or differentiate themselves enough, so they just flat out lie.

Now, I honestly hope that even their front-line technicians are smart enough that (a) and (b) can be ignored, and I would hope (c) is not true, so what their chart really says to me is, "We are willing to outright lie, despite knowing the truth, to make a few extra dollars." That tells me everything I need to know about their integrity.

[Sam]

Nope, its not true, HG run PHPSuExec which runs php scripts as username:username

[GatorBrent]

I emailed their ceo to get this corrected two times now. It's much easier to lie about the competition when you can't beat them.

[YukonMaster]

Originally Posted by GatorBrent

I emailed their ceo to get this corrected two times now. It's much easier to lie about the competition when you can't beat them.

Yea, and then you get the few that actually look into this stuff instead of just taking it in, it just makes then look stupid.

[Pazeh]

also HG does provide email on add-ons & backup restores & dedicated IP & add on domains & sub domains & PHP 5 & username:username &

HostGator uses Enom as their registrar. Additional domain registrations are $15/year.

I thought they had a RED X near the HG's Registrar in the chart...

I give up!!

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by Serra

Email addons - yea, where is that spam protection they were going to add? What about mail scanner? Hmmm... Ok, that one is fine.

That item on the chart is "email on addons", not "email addons", but even with your interpretation the color should probably not be red.

[kmaw]

Yeah, I didn't think Blue did themselves any favours....

[Jordanlw]

Well its business...
And they would of made some from this 'Advert Stunt',
Although it may be false.. Just like when MS made the Charts about 'Best Browser' Of course IE coming 1st.. xD

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by Serra

Odd the chart doesn't have "Ticket Response Time", "New account/dedicated setup time", "billing options", "support options" nor anything thing else I could consider important when looking for a host.

Yep, plus stuff that's hard to measure, such as "Time to suspend morons breaking shared server"; "frequency of IP blacklist bounces"; "billing accuracy percentage"; "gross adjusted accuracy".

[tonyxcom]

I have blue host for all of a few days before coming to hg a year or so ago. I left because viewing 3 pages in my Gallery would cause me to exceed my cpu limit.

I used powweb for almost 3 years before that and they were actually great, until they got bought out.

I can't believe they still have that up there. They're fully aware the statement is not true, and they're fully aware the statement is still there (we've contacted them), so I guess they're outright willfully lying about their competition to make a couple bucks. Nice.

[Germz]

Can't you sue them for defamation?
I sure would. Free publicity, and free money and all of their costumers would come here.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by Germz

Can't you sue them for defamation?
I sure would. Free publicity, and free money and all of their costumers would come here.

How would their customers find out?

Besides, it may be inaccurate but it's not really "defamation", as far as lawsuits go.

[Germz]

Defamation=In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation.

HG can sue especially if they already asked them to take it down. A way to let people know when HG wins the case is to submit a press release.
And I'm more than sure HG would win. They asked them to take the false claim down yet they have not.

In a court, they could even ask the competing company for the log records of that page and ask them for a percentage of wathever they made off the false claim.

Originally Posted by GatorBrent

I emailed their ceo to get this corrected two times now. It's much easier to lie about the competition when you can't beat them.

I would think a certified letter, possibly from a law office, would get a better result.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by Germz

Defamation=In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation.

HG can sue especially if they already asked them to take it down. A way to let people know when HG wins the case is to submit a press release.
And I'm more than sure HG would win. They asked them to take the false claim down yet they have not.

In a court, they could even ask the competing company for the log records of that page and ask them for a percentage of wathever they made off the false claim.

Haven't your law professors told you yet that "defamation" tort plaintiffs need to prove harm? HG would not only have to track down potential customers who specifically chose not to use HG as a result, but calculate lost profits, not sales.

At best, the "log records of that page" would indicate customers who signed with BlueHost after reading it--not whether they'd been seriously considering HG until that point. HG could not claim that every reader of that page represented a sale that did not go to it.

HG could make a WAY better case under the federal Lanham Act, which covers comparative advertising claims and requires them to be truthful.

Happily for HG, there is a simple and inexpensive alternative for cases such as this (where the main goal is to force the competitor to substantiate or correct). To quote from an article published last year by Manhattan Advertising and Legal Law:

Perhaps the most popular alternative to litigation is the voluntary dispute resolution process offered and administered by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The proceedings are confidential (although the decisions are published), the cost is a fraction of the expense of litigation, and the time from commencement to completion is brief – 60 to 120 days. Compliance with NAD decisions runs at approximately 96%, and parties who fail to comply risk a referral of the matter to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).

[slapshotw]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

Haven't your law professors told you yet that "defamation" tort plaintiffs need to prove harm?

Zing! I'll side with Gwyneth on this one.

[Germz]

I'm 14, no Law professors for me yet, but thanks for the lesson.

[jakeruston]

Its ridiculous what other Hosting Companies will do just to get a few more Customers...

[Sam]

Just seen this: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=696324

Bluehost still seem to think HG run as nobody:nobody

[data66]

I went to the link posted above to see what Blue Host was saying regarding Host Gator. Their support person suggested to google Blue Host uptime, which I did. http://www.bluehostreview.org/bluehost/bluehost-uptime/ then I checked Host Gator http://www.hostgatorreview.org/ and...Host Gator won. If you notice, BH had some failed checks, whatever those are, *noob here* , and HG had no failed checks.