Betterbeup sucks? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

SomeCreep · 01-15-2004, 08:54 PM

50 sites Betterbeup

extreme · 01-15-2004, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moose
Funny thing is...
this customer we made arrangements with has not fulfilled his end of the bargain and is being shutoff again.
Now he is running 2 sites with this so downtime minutes will add up quick. We will rule betterbeup with the most minutes.

WE will be NUMBER ONE minute producer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im so excited.

No one can beat us!

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

Hahahah .. fucking hilarious.

Libertine · 01-16-2004, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker
Chill the fuck out people. This is beta. We are making changes and fixes as we go. The stats reporting that shows the hosts downtime we are having problems with, but if you judge this program by that then you are not very bright. First priority is to make sure the system catches every sort of outage. So far I think we have that covered. We will fix the sponsor downtime cache problem this week.

If I may give you a small piece of advice for the future:
Keep something in alpha or non-public beta until you think you've sorted all problems out.
The whole purpose of a public beta is to have a finished product and see what damage actual use will cause.

What you did is bad: releasing a public beta of which the performance DOES reflect on others. And you didn't just release it fairly privately, no, you made an announcement about it on GFY.
If it was "just a beta", why did you do that? Why didn't you just contact a few hosts and webmasters for a limited public test?

Also, this might be a good time to tell you that the overall statistics will be worthless, even in the script's completed form if that doesn't involve some major changes. Since it only focuses on downtime, it fails to show the importance of speed.
A host which delivers crappy connectivity and only has a few clients can look extremely good in betterbeup. An example:

Webair has 20 sites in betterbeup. One of those sites is owned by some deadbeat newbie who fails to pay his hosting bill and gets shut down. The newbie doesn't remove the site from betterbeup. All of a sudden, webair has 5% downtime until the site is removed from betterbeup, either by you or the script.

Crappyhostwithbadconnectivityandnosupport.com has exactly 1 site in betterbeup. By some fluke of nature, the particular box the site is on stays up for quite a while.

Now, Crappyhostwithbadconnectivityandnosupport.com looks a whole lot better than webair in betterbeup. A bit odd, don't you think?

The overall stats of betterbeup are totally and completely useless until you decide to integrate speed and user reviews for each host. And - quite obviously - in order for the overall downtime stats to be worth anything, they need to be based on verified webmasters. That is, webmasters who are likely to pay their hosting bill and not get shut down for other reasons either.

Ofcourse, the downtime checker of betterbeup can be very useful for individual webmasters. The notification thingy is a great feature many webmasters can use. You should just change the way you handle the main overview.

com · 01-16-2004, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

If I may give you a small piece of advice for the future:
Keep something in alpha or non-public beta until you think you've sorted all problems out.
The whole purpose of a public beta is to have a finished product and see what damage actual use will cause.

What you did is bad: releasing a public beta of which the performance DOES reflect on others. And you didn't just release it fairly privately, no, you made an announcement about it on GFY.
If it was "just a beta", why did you do that? Why didn't you just contact a few hosts and webmasters for a limited public test?

Also, this might be a good time to tell you that the overall statistics will be worthless, even in the script's completed form if that doesn't involve some major changes. Since it only focuses on downtime, it fails to show the importance of speed.
A host which delivers crappy connectivity and only has a few clients can look extremely good in betterbeup. An example:

Webair has 20 sites in betterbeup. One of those sites is owned by some deadbeat newbie who fails to pay his hosting bill and gets shut down. The newbie doesn't remove the site from betterbeup. All of a sudden, webair has 5% downtime until the site is removed from betterbeup, either by you or the script.

Crappyhostwithbadconnectivityandnosupport.com has exactly 1 site in betterbeup. By some fluke of nature, the particular box the site is on stays up for quite a while.

Now, Crappyhostwithbadconnectivityandnosupport.com looks a whole lot better than webair in betterbeup. A bit odd, don't you think?

The overall stats of betterbeup are totally and completely useless until you decide to integrate speed and user reviews for each host. And - quite obviously - in order for the overall downtime stats to be worth anything, they need to be based on verified webmasters. That is, webmasters who are likely to pay their hosting bill and not get shut down for other reasons either.

Ofcourse, the downtime checker of betterbeup can be very useful for individual webmasters. The notification thingy is a great feature many webmasters can use. You should just change the way you handle the main overview.

You just put everything I was thinking into more polite terms then I ever could have put forth.

com · 01-16-2004, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker

After 24 hours it will stop counting. What you are whinning about will affect every host so in the end the numbers will average out. You only have 3 server being monitored right now.

You really should make this known up front on the main page. This counter is no where near accurate and relies on a round robbin guestimate that each host will have the same ammount of non-payment account suspensions amongst other client responsible downtime as well as host responsible downtime... and this will some how "even out". C'mon man, think about what you're saying here.

chodadog · 01-16-2004, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker
... but if you judge this program by that then you are not very bright.

And if you publically launch a buggy beta?

com · 01-16-2004, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chodadog

And if you publically launch a buggy beta?

you are genius, especially considering the ammount of insight you would need to be capable of overlooking ;)

chodadog · 01-16-2004, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by com

you are genius, especially considering the ammount of insight you would need to be capable of overlooking ;)

i am too drunk to decypher your broken engrish.

01-15-2004, 08:54 PM	#51
SomeCreep :glugglug Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Where the Wild Things Are Posts: 26,118	50 sites Betterbeup __________________ Webair Hosting I use and recommend Webair for hosting.