Require TLD?

[Schmarvin]

I was thinking about something, as I see it happening more and more lately. New hosts starting under a .tk, .co.cc, .uni.cc or other free domain. Do you think these so called hosts should be allowed to run?

I personally don't, as they can't afford a $6 domain. Whats that say about their services that they offer?

What do you guys think? I'd like to hear your opinion on free domain and hosting providers.

[sander k]

They shouldn't, so I agree with you on that.
I would also like to suggest to Peo and Jan to not accept any hosting offers on FWS from hosts that are using a domain like that.
They simply don't live long.

[Seraphim]

It's iffy at best. Every once and a while somebody will come along with an all-free opening setup using a reseller off of someone else's stable backend, but these are exceedingly rare. For instance, ultimately mtwiscool did go on to start a surprisingly popular service, although I still have my doubts about it's financial stability if he finds a way to make it work he's set for life.

What about instead of outright blocking hosts that use free TLDs, we instead require 10 posts before a host of any TLD is allowed to post offers or reply to requests at all. That would cut down on a lot of spam, while still letting people who are honestly interested in the business try their hand. Most of the free domain hosts don't last long anyway, and many aren't interested in putting forth the effort to meet a post requirement before advertising.

Although it might improve the quality of the host offers here at FWS to block the free TLDs from advertising, there are plenty of paid TLD hosts to dissappear too for the same lack of financial stability that dooms the majority of the new hosts out there.

[sander k]

On some forums I am a member of hosts can only advertise when they post their company number for example "----------------" (without the space, domains seems to be blacklisted) and sitedeals.nl
That could get a lot less spam too.

[wswd]

Even a .info domain is usually around $2/year. Seriously, what "company" can't afford the $2-6 per year for a domain name? Legitimate businesses do not use free domain names, and should have absolutely no place here.

[CS Squad]

But then again, these fly by night host usually will have a lot of excuse to argue with us, if we want to ban them from posting their offers here.
Although some hosters who have a TLD domain do close down too, but at least, the closing rate is lower than those who are using a dot.tk domain, which even their NS are using the dot.tk domain.

[[JSH]John]

I would never trust a host that uses a free domain. It's amazing how some of them even have their own datacentres (not really, but they sometimes pretend in their "About Us"), yet can't afford a .com.

[polieleos7777]

Please don't k+b them (if you don't know what k+b is, you need to IRC more). There are good hosts with free domains.

[wswd]

There are good hosts with free domains.

No there aren't. What kind of legitimate company uses a free domain, and can't afford the $5/year? Would you seriously do business with a company that can't even afford their own domain name?

[Seraphim]

Please don't k+b them (if you don't know what k+b is, you need to IRC more). There are good hosts with free domains.

Why is that? Could you give some examples of good hosts with free domains? I'd even take hosts that started out with a free domain and switched to a paid name after making a little money.

Cause that's the deciding factor right there. If a host starting up so low-budget they can't even afford a proper name has a chance at all of surviving and growing into a proper business, then yes I will support letting them advertise here as long as they comply with other rules. But if no such hosts exist, then such startups have no place here because they will not provide the lasting stable service that people these days are looking for.

[CS Squad]

Please don't k+b them (if you don't know what k+b is, you need to IRC more). There are good hosts with free domains.

You mean by 1poundhosting.tk which owned by mtw?

[stuffradio]

Moved the thread here because it discusses allowing or disallowing people to post offers, and it was requested to be moved here because of that discussion.

[Schmarvin]

I don't remember asking for it to be moved. Now it will get no opinions :/ Moving it here means it deals with FWS. It was only meant to concern free hosts using free domains.

stuffradio, please tell me where it deals with allowing people to post offers here at FWS. I stated "I was thinking about something, as I see it happening more and more lately. New hosts starting under a .tk, .co.cc, .uni.cc or other free domain. Do you think these so called hosts should be allowed to run?"

Please show me where it has FWS in it. Or rather, anything about posting offers. Not gonna lie, whoever asked for it to be moved isn't very bright or logical.

[Peo]

You want it moved to "Free hosting discussions" or "Host Talk"?

As for your question - who should stop them if they are "not allowed to run"?

[Schmarvin]

I thought it was in "Host Talk."
And it was more-or-less a discussion on opinions. No one can stop a host from running. Just looking to get opinions to see who has what perspective on this subject.