Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > which is better
which is better
| Posted by Backuphost, 01-10-2005, 01:15 PM |
| Hello Every body but i need your help
i have more than 2 reseller accounts and i use the name server if each account
but now i want to make my own name server
is that better to have only one domain and register at it all my name server with each ip
also onther question is that better to make the name server under a different name than my company domain
i mean if my domain company is www.hostcompany.com
is that better to make the name server any other different name
thanks
|
| Posted by niyogi, 01-10-2005, 01:42 PM |
| Some hosters market themselves through their name servers - for example GoDaddy uses "nsX.secure-servers.net" to part domains as a way to establish themselves as a reliable company (but also mask their identity as well since people may not want their visitors to know that they purchased the domain from GoDaddy so easily).
In hindsight, we probably should have used "generic-sounding" name servers since the plus-side is the anonymity that resellers usually want. So I would say go for it!
Roj
|
| Posted by grace5, 01-10-2005, 02:10 PM |
| If you ever need to have resellers(maybe in the near future you will grow to a dedicated SRV) they will not go for your hosting domain name servers,I would get a domain such as dnsxx.com ,nonedns.com,ect. so in the future you can have a an blind default name servers.
|
| Posted by Backuphost, 01-11-2005, 07:36 AM |
| so it is better to have a different domain name server than my company name (My Company Domain)
|
| Posted by IHSL, 01-11-2005, 08:04 AM |
| If you are servicing resellers, yes.
This would also apply, when naming your servers.
Simon
|
| Posted by mdrussell, 01-11-2005, 08:57 AM |
| If you are looking for a reseller plan, and just targetting end user clients; local business, family, friends, relatives and other potential buyers for shared hosting plans then using nameservers related to your company domain should be fine.
|
| Posted by grace5, 01-11-2005, 03:29 PM |
| yes true ,but if you expand in the future you will need blind dns anyway.
|
| Posted by rootbug, 01-11-2005, 04:44 PM |
| I totally agree!!! Site5.com apperantly doesn't think its important for resellers. Well, I'm sure that is an unfair assumption but they aren't doing this.
I applaud those that take the extra step in providing a true resellers account.
|
| Posted by Matt Lightner, 01-11-2005, 05:15 PM |
| I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Our reseller servers do, indeed, use anonymous domain names that are not registered to Site5.
It seems that you are very vehemently suggesting that it is impossible to be a successful reseller with our services (in multiple threads now). In fact, we have many hundreds of successful resellers who are very pleased with our services, and scores more signing up each week and finding themselves very satisfied. Your use of Site5 as an example for all that is wrong with reselling is misguided, in my humble opinion, and I would ask that you at least take the time to do an accurate comparison between Site5 and our main competitors before making the sweeping statement that we're not a viable option. Because, in fact, we are (very much so).
Incidentally, we sincerely appreciate your suggestions and are already making plans to implement them into our services in the very near future. Meanwhile your crusade against our service's legitimacy seems somewhat unjustified and certainly unprovoked; we didn't do anything to you personally--the service and attention you received from our staff is what everyone has come to expect from Site5. I would simply request that you grant us a fair review, as I think you're not giving us much credit for all of the hard work that we put in.
As I said--we are already looking into implementing your ideas and the ideas of others, and we have been nothing but professional and responsive to your very public accusations of inviability. In return, I would expect you to represent us fairly, rather than just continually bringing up the one or two aspects of our services that you see as negatives.
Matt
|
| Posted by rootbug, 01-11-2005, 06:38 PM |
| Not at all. I'm sorry you failed appreciate the situation with my clients.
This is good to hear.
1) There is no crusade.
2) If my comments on your service are false why did you say above "we sincerely appreciate your suggestions and are already making plans to implement them into our services in the very near future." If I'm guilty of anything its speaking the truth in a public forum.
3) I was only with Site5 for about a week, but as I've said before, your tech support response was great.
4) Give you a fair review? Are you asking me or telling me? Besides, I gave you the best review I could since I was only with Site5 for a week. I can't say how good/bad "uptime" was because I didn't fully transfer my clients.
5) It is likely true that my coments on Site5 are not complete. Since I was only with Site5 for less than a week, I only have limited experience with them but have pointed out both the good and the bad. Unfortunately we couldn't resolve the bad (so I left).
I am VERY pleased to see some of my (and others) comments into action. However, I don't know why you call them "accusations" when you also say in the same sentence you will be implementing my ideas and the ideas of others.
If Site5 does make these changes, it will make them that much more attractive as a full package reseller. Unless those that don't have a problem with what I've outlined....they appear to be a very nice host (appear because I wasn't there long enough to fully know).
To WHT members:
If others feel my coments and/or suggestions I've make toward Site5 are completely "unjustified," please let me know (publicly or in PM) and I will never bring up or mention Site5 again (good or bad).
Last edited by rootbug; 01-11-2005 at 06:47 PM.
|
| Posted by Matt Lightner, 01-11-2005, 09:07 PM |
| Rootbug,
What gave me concern is the fact that you bring us up in another thread several days later and refer back to the thread in which you gave an unfavorable review (regardless of whether or not it was honest or accurate--it WAS unfovorable). Are you going to link back to that review and say things like "Site5 doesn't think so!" every chance you get? It simply seems unnecessary. In fact, we do exactly what the thread starter was asking about--use an anonymous domain name for our reseller servers and nameservers. You can easily agree with the thread starter without adding in the jab at Site5.
If that was not your intention, then I apologize--but that's how it came off.
I do not claim that the comments are false.
I do not deny that your original review was an objective review from your perspective. However when you go around to other threads posting links back to your review (which was clearly unfavorable as the "thumbs-down" icon would indicate), ESPECIALLY when the thread is not even about Site5, that goes beyond simply posting your objective experiences and starts to look like you have some kind of grudge against Site5.
I appreciate that you included this fact, however I haven't seen you posting links back to the thread that say "Site5 has great tech support." Instead your links are in reference to something that you think we're doing wrong. That's when it starts to sound like a "crusade" against us--the initial discussion is over and you're still bringing up ways in which you think we are bad.
Indeed, which indicates to me that you're not in a fair position to judge our services one way or another. The bottom lins here is that you required a feature that we do not presently offer, and that made our services unusable to you. And yet your review comes labeled with a "thumbs-down" logo, which to most people would indicate that you believe us to be a bad choice. But this is based merely on your own requirements and not on any evaluation of the true variable aspects of our services (support responsiveness, server performance, network uptime, etc.).
And we do intend on making them as I mentioned above. That's why I don't feel that saying that we "don't think anonymity is important" is an inaccurate statement. If we didn't think that it was important, why would we be making the changes?
All you can really say with certainty is that "Site5 currently doesn't offer SSL certificates registered under an anonymous company name." That fact seems hardly noteworthy in a thread such as this one, and if you were to include a reference to Site5 in this manner it would seem forced and somewhat off-topic. Which is why it's starting to feel as though you're seeking out places in which to point out our flaws. If someone wants info about Site5, they can do a search, find your thread, read it in context and make their own analysis of the situation. This thread is not about Site5 and including a link to that thread is not very relevant to this discussion sounds more as though you're trying to target Site5 unfairly.
As I mentioned, we've been nothing but responsive throughout the whole process, and are in fact implementing your suggestions. You can't honestly think we're "thumbs-down-worthy" simply because we didn't accomodate your requirements before you even made the requests. The best we can do is to try to anticipate customer needs, and then if we miss something, see what we can do to make our services even better. I hardly think that's indicative of bad service.
If you like, I can keep you posted on our progress through PM here.
As do I. If you'll notice, I've been a member here since 2000 and am still an active participant more than five years later. I fully respect the open discussion forum that WHT provides and think it has done wonders for the industry. WHT is not Site5's enemy--in fact it's one of our best friends!
Matt
|
| Posted by ldcdc, 01-11-2005, 09:10 PM |
| Well now, this wasn't a thread about Site5, it was thread about a particular practice. You could've commented on the subject and leave Site5's name in peace, but you chose not to. It was your right to make that choice, but it's just as well Matt's right to interpret the meaning of your choice.
Leaving that aside, here's a rule:
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
Shared Hosting
Shared Hosting
