You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 13, 2022. It is now read-only.
Can we reorganize the hosting providers page in a more methodical format? I was thinking an organization similar to the following:
4 price points: $5, $10, $20, $40
Tier system: either 6 tiers (S, A, B, C, D, F), 5 tiers (A, B, C, D, F), 4 tiers (Gold, Silver, Bronze, None OR A, B , C, F), 3 tiers (Good / OK / Bad OR Gold / Silver / Bronze). Any hosts which have not been reviewed in an unbiased fashion would be put in the "awaiting review" section.
More standardization: See how a host does in terms of the following:
affordability
speed
support
reputation
niche features
An example format might look like this:
Price point A ($5/mo)
Gold
Host A's (budget 4GB US plan or budget 5GB EU plan)
Silver
Host B's (premium 1GB plan)
Bronze
Host C (budget 2GB plan)
None
Host D (premium 10GB plan)
The best plans from each host for that price point are placed in parentheses
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Can we reorganize the hosting providers page in a more methodical format? I was thinking an organization similar to the following:
4 price points: $5, $10, $20, $40
Tier system: either 6 tiers (S, A, B, C, D, F), 5 tiers (A, B, C, D, F), 4 tiers (Gold, Silver, Bronze, None OR A, B , C, F), 3 tiers (Good / OK / Bad OR Gold / Silver / Bronze). Any hosts which have not been reviewed in an unbiased fashion would be put in the "awaiting review" section.
More standardization: See how a host does in terms of the following:
An example format might look like this:
Price point A ($5/mo)
Gold
Silver
Bronze
None
The best plans from each host for that price point are placed in parentheses
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: