Talk:Comparison of free web hosting services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

For your consideration[edit]

Webydo http://www.webydo.com/about.html

Metrics[edit]

Could you insert the extra categories "Page Count" and "Visitor Count"? "Hits"? "Page Count" is the number of visits for every page of a person's free website, while "Visitor Count" only gives the number of visits for the whole of a person's free website and doesn't narrow it down any more.

212.50.171.227 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Removings[edit]

Why did host1free.com removed from list of free hostings? webhostingsonline.com

This page is for well known services only. webhostingsonline.com does not fill that criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.59.208 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

you shouldn't have removed the list in the discussion page

2[edit]

Template:Squarespace should be removed, as it doesn't off free hosting. While they do have a 14-day trial period, that period doesn't even allow public access to whatever site is developed under that trial account.

Deceased free hostings[edit]

What about adding deceased free web hostings in a separated table? emijrp (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There's probably more of them than there are stars in the sky. We could do it for "notable" ones, I suppose, but if we allow people to add redlinks it'll get messy pretty fast. Though, I suppose there's not much incentive to spam a site that doesn't exist, so that problem might not ever happen. Soap 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about GeoCities, for example. Notable web hostings, of course. emijrp (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The notable ones should be those that have at least an article about them in here. -Mardus (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That seems pretty reasonable, that's the way we go for pretty much every other list. Would we just provide a list of the dead ones or what they offered when they shut down? OSborn arfcontribs. 17:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably another good candidate: AOL Hometown. Terabytes of data and websites were just wiped out in 2008, by which time some of its websites had a continuous history of a decade or even more (one case even reported "more than 17 years"), with its former users making quite a stink after it had happened on pretty short notice, as can be seen in the article. --79.193.49.126 (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I support adding information about every hoster that has a reasonably article about it here in Wikipedia, and which contributed something interesting and new to the web and its development. So GeoCities, tripod, Lycos, Angelfire, AOL Hometown, NBCi (There used to be one such hoster under them, which used FTP uploads. After NBCi purchased the hoster, it was shut down.) and such items that pass the notability threshold.
Maybe there should be an article about the history of free web hosting instead of a comparison, because comparisons are good for when a person needs to make a decision about which service or product to use. Separately, these hosters could then be put into a category list of "Former web hosters" or "Formerly free web hosters".
-Mardus (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

As far as I know only Weebly.com allows to download a backup of the user's website to the local hard drive of the user, serving as a back-up. Typically, free webhosts don't allow to save a backup of your site locally on your HD, Weebly being amongst the few exceptions. Webs (formerly Freewebs) don't allow this as far as I know, although the table says they do ; has this changed recently or where did this info come from that Webs allows to make backups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.250.97 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Blogger (being a blog service, though) also allows saving backups to the user's personal storage. -Mardus (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Weebly- What good is archive when you can't import it back into weebly? It serves no purpose and should be clarified that it doesn't allow self-source imports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlabamaSouthern (talkcontribs) 14:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Extra web hosting services[edit]

The web hosting services noted at http://freehosting1.net/free_ftp_hosting.aspx should be mentioned aswell. Perhaps it's useful to distinguish hosts that only offer an FTP-type host service, and those that also allow page creation online (ie Blogger, ...)

91.182.187.239 (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

edicy[edit]

not free anymore. what a bummer! removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.194.255.37 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Quantities of bytes and bits - IEC Prefixes[edit]

This chart does not follow the Wikipedia style guidelines that state:

"The IEC prefixes kibi-, mebi-, gibi-, etc. (symbols Ki, Mi, Gi, etc.) are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers (see Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008)), so are generally not to be used... Wikipedia follows common practice regarding bytes and other data traditionally quantified using binary prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 220 and 210 respectively) and their unit symbols (e.g. MB and KB). Despite the IEC's 1998 guideline creating several new binary prefixes (e.g. mebi-, kibi-) to distinguish the meaning of the decimal SI prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 106 and 103 respectively) from the binary ones, consensus on Wikipedia currently favours the retention of the binary prefixes in computing-related contexts. Use 256 MB of RAM, not 256 MiB of RAM."

If someone has an easy way to mass change this, please do. Thank you.

Other sites[edit]

See http://www.prchecker.info/web-hosting/top-10-free-web-hosting-sites/ http://www.ironspider.ca/website/freewebhost2.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.133.90.45 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Envy.nu[edit]

I was hoping to learn about envy.nu. 24.211.181.94 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

^That was me. Chantal Kohl's Bernadette (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

HTML5?[edit]

This heading is very vague and should be removed.
Any web provider with custom HTML should serve HTML5 as well seeing as it is a client side language.
Some web providers may advertise HTML5 compatibly but it isn't true.

Here are some reasons:
a) There is no support on web servers for HTML5. There is support on browsers for HTML5. Servers support PHP or Perl or other server side languages.
b) HTML5 isn't a feature it is collection of features you can't just say something supports HTML5. You could say something supports the local storage element or the progress tag.
c) It just looks awkward...

I won't remove it but if any of the main contributors wants to it would be a smart idea.

By the way - Ucoz claims HTML5 on its ad site but this article says no lifeform (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Some reasons to retain the HTML5 column[edit]

I consider indication of HTML5 as a supported feature to be much less vague than Custom File Hosting, which is not the same as Arbitrary File Type Hosting.[1]

  • Clearly HTML5 can be characterized as a client-side language (because it runs on the client browser), but it is stored on the web-hosting server. Several of the listed services[2] only offer a proprietary drag-and-drop or WYSIWYG interface to build the user's client-side content. In such cases, HTML5 can only be supported with the cooperation of the web hosting service.
  • Some features of HTML5 can be assisted by the server. This can directly and noticeably affect the operating efficiency of web hosting servers.[3]
  • Numerous other features of HTML5 must be supported (at least partly implemented) on the web hosting servers.[4][5][6][7]

These aspects make an indication of HTML5 support relevant to a comparison of web hosting service. I would prefer it if the indication can remain. Here are some reasons:

a) Some servers do offer HTML5 support, such as those at [3].
b) I agree that HTML5 isn't a single feature. But neither is it a set of features. It is a language. One can indeed "say" (determine) whether a document markup supports HTML5, although as a result of its Bachus-Naur definition as a language, the terminology is determination of conformance. In fact, HTML5 has very strict and unambiguous procedures generally requiring failure and error messages in cases of non-conformance. HTML5 has many features (rather than is many features), and some are indeed optional, but conformance with the language specification is not optional. Thus support/conformance with HTML5 can indeed be determined.
c) It is hard to objectively determine why the word HTML5 "just looks awkward". Is it the 5 at the end? Or perhaps in reference to Frankie Muniz, its the M in the middle. If HTML5 is removed, just due to perceived ungainliness, then the Wikipedia articles on Mnemonic and Bakerloo will just have to be sent to oblivion as well.

But that's all just my opinion.[8]

Notes for HTML5

  1. ^ Following industry practice, Custom File Hosting normally means users can configure (customize) web hosting for at least some other file formats beyond HTML and CSS, such as certain media types, perhaps ultimately handled by a client-side plug-in. On the other hand, Arbitrary File Hosting means the user can store any file format on the web hosting servers.
  2. ^ Such as [1]
  3. ^ Server-side support of HTML5 layout region components significantly improves the efficiency of web page servers. I personally noticed this in the various page transition capabilities at [2], and have discussed it with their support team.
  4. ^ HTML5 specifies a class of events that are generated by the server and transmitted to the client via a new EventSource interface in JavaScript, as well as a new text/event-stream MIME type. I would be intrigued by any bona fide claim to have implemented this without server-side HTML5 support.
  5. ^ Athough previously prohibited in earlier HTML specifiations, multiple long term connections between the client and the server are now permitted by the HTML5 WebSocket API. Such persistent connections can only be established if both the client and the server support HTML5.
  6. ^ Google App Engine support requires the Channel API from Google. HTML5 will be required on both the client and the server to support its full feature set.
  7. ^ As the World Wide Web application model continues its journey towards the server-push paradigm, server-side HTML5 will begin to prove essential to guarantee consistency across vendors.
  8. ^ I consider my opinion to be somewhat informed, arising from my position as a professional web server HTML5 programmer.

With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC).

Questions about what should be recorded in this table, etc.[edit]

First off, isn't the column "Free" somewhat redundant in this table, as the article is a comparison of free web hosting services'. If they aren't free, they don't belong here. Secondly, where companies are offering both free and non-free options, should the table take into account all of the options, or only those that apply to the free accounts? If the latter is true, some of the rows need fixing. --Topperfalkon (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. Maybe create a column that is titled "Paid Plan(s) Available" or something similar to that. That way people will know that the company has both options available to them. MrMindMap (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't dare to add it[edit]

But doesn't geocities.ws fullfill the criteria, although there is as yet no Wikipedia article about it? 93.199.106.204 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what is the criteria for putting hosting providers on here? I mean it says that they have to well known companies, but a lot of these companies I have never heard about. We should have a metric that we can measure that if they pass it (number of sites hosted, etc) then they belong on this list. MrMindMap (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Altervista still free???[edit]

I quickly looked at Altervista and found no free plan? Does it still exist or have they removed it?

Deragon (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional Free Web Hosting sites[edit]

I would like to add the following free Web Hosting site. What is the policy on adding new free web hosting sites.

http://www.awardspace.com
http://www.000webhost.com

Mckmckmt (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)