Suggestion regarding your company's (webhosting.uk.com) status

[black-dog]

Originally Posted by Dan

I am sure Andrew has alot on his plate, he may have forgotten this thread. There's no need to be so negative / rude.

Why not let the company speak for themselves? Cassie is a dissatisfied customer who has clearly been written off as an 'awkward customer'. When you are in business you have to take the consequences of such decisions.

[John]

Hi,

I'm not sure what there is to say?

I'm John, I own the company. Administrator is in charge of Sales/Marketing, respective staff members have their titles in their signatures and their position is self explanatory.

As for Cassie, people seem to think she is a dissatisfied customer. This simple isn't true. After all, would a dissatisfied customer stay with us, when there are so many other web hosting companies? Would a dissatisfied customer keep on posting on our forums, therefore helping our search engine rankings, if she was dissatisfied?

[Administrator]

Originally Posted by yello

Come on... still waiting!

Hi,

We had a discussion on this topic, but we've not reached to any conclusion as of now. We will discuss on this topic after a couple of months and then decide what information should be made public and what information should be kept confidential.

We will need to discuss this with our solicitor as well as she's the one who will need to deal with our competitors who will misuse information disclosed on our website.

Our motive is to offer good service to our customers and keep our company protected from unwanted problems. We cannot invite problems just to please some customers.

For your information, we have a customer on this forum who keeps on accusing us all the time, but they've not moved to any other host from the last couple of years. I hope this information is sufficient for you to figure out how good we are with the services we offer.

[black-dog]

Originally Posted by John

Hi,

I'm not sure what there is to say?

I'm John, I own the company.

As for Cassie, people seem to think she is a dissatisfied customer. This simple isn't true. After all, would a dissatisfied customer stay with us, when there are so many other web hosting companies? Would a dissatisfied customer keep on posting on our forums, therefore helping our search engine rankings, if she was dissatisfied?

Hi John,

You seem a tad out of touch.
Suggestion regarding your company's (webhosting.uk.com) status

Sure seems dissatisfied to me.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by black-dog

Why not let the company speak for themselves? Cassie is a dissatisfied customer who has clearly been written off as an 'awkward customer'. When you are in business you have to take the consequences of such decisions.

The company has spoken for itself, as above. I am just calming the situation down a bit, which is what I am here to do.

[John]

Originally Posted by black-dog

Hi John,

You seem a tad out of touch.
Suggestion regarding your company's (webhosting.uk.com) status

Sure seems dissatisfied to me.

Sure, I understand what she says, but one must also take into account her actions. She is an active forum poster here, which helps us get new sales through search engine rankings. There are many cheaper webhosts out there, yet she has decided to stay with us.

I would prefer to think she just maybe has some tensions in her life and she prefers to vent them here. I have no problem with that

[jon123]

Strange thread. i would have thought Cassie would be the one who knows whether she is dissatisfied or not! Or has she already stated that she is!

I would however like to officially strip 'Hockey Mum Sarah palin' of her nickname, and give it to Cassie as much more deserving. i think it is fitting!
Cassie's comments are very funny in the way she sinks her teeth into something and never lets go, so the nickname sticks, and should be known from now till evermore as 'pitbull'

Those on favour say 'AYE'

[black-dog]

Originally Posted by John

Sure, I understand what she says, but one must also take into account her actions. She is an active forum poster here, which helps us get new sales through search engine rankings. There are many cheaper webhosts out there, yet she has decided to stay with us.

I would prefer to think she just maybe has some tensions in her life and she prefers to vent them here. I have no problem with that

It is fairly convoluted logic to suggest approval from Cassie on the basis of search engine rankings. Even if it were true, (and I fail to see how her posting here does an awful lot for your page rank), her previous comments are far more damaging to your company than any benefit that may ensue. One negative comment can wipe out half a dozen positives.

She is obviously not the most technically savvy user out there (not a criticism) and has made it clear that she stays a customer because of the hassle of moving.

Now I don't have a particular problem with WHUK(touch wood) and I'm quite happy about the service I get from tech support but I'd be far more confident if you took your fingers out of your ears, John, and stopped saying 'La la la, can't hear you'. You most certainly do have a problem with Cassie and not recognising it ain't going to make it go away.

My associate company, whose chief executive is the holder of the Queen's award for Enterprise promotion, goes live with a major, high profile, new project with WHUK next year (the 1st International Enterprise Promotion Convention) and I need to be confident that things won't go pear shaped, because yours truly will get it in the neck if it does!

So I really would be happier if you took these comments seriously.

[Administrator]

Hi Geoff,

We've had a policy of keeping everything transparent on our forums and this policy has created problems for us since Cassie joined this forum. We lost one of our most important forum member and many potential customers because of her.

We tried to Ban her forum account, but problems which she created later on have no solution.

I've learnt a lesson due to Cassie, "never fall in dispute with a Women as you will loose more than what you can gain out of the dispute".

[Cassie]

Originally Posted by Dan

I am sure Andrew has alot on his plate, he may have forgotten this thread. There's no need to be so negative / rude.

Not rude - just realistic.

[John]

Originally Posted by black-dog

It is fairly convoluted logic to suggest approval from Cassie on the basis of search engine rankings. Even if it were true, (and I fail to see how her posting here does an awful lot for your page rank), her previous comments are far more damaging to your company than any benefit that may ensue. One negative comment can wipe out half a dozen positives.

She is obviously not the most technically savvy user out there (not a criticism) and has made it clear that she stays a customer because of the hassle of moving.

Now I don't have a particular problem with WHUK(touch wood) and I'm quite happy about the service I get from tech support but I'd be far more confident if you took your fingers out of your ears, John, and stopped saying 'La la la, can't hear you'. You most certainly do have a problem with Cassie and not recognising it ain't going to make it go away.

My associate company, whose chief executive is the holder of the Queen's award for Enterprise promotion, goes live with a major, high profile, new project with WHUK next year (the 1st International Enterprise Promotion Convention) and I need to be confident that things won't go pear shaped, because yours truly will get it in the neck if it does!

So I really would be happier if you took these comments seriously.

Sure, I understand. I can either terminate her as a WHUK customer, ban her from the forum, and make her even worse. She obviously has way more time on her hands than I have, and I don't fancy chasing her all over the internet.

Second option, I can treat her comments as they are, moronic. If you aren't happy with something, to the extent that Cassie claims, you would have moved long ago. None of this rubbish about the hassle of moving. Even if she wasn't happy with us, she could just stay away from the forums. It takes someone "special" to constantly post on a forum of a company you supposedly hate, but won't move from.

[black-dog]

Originally Posted by John

Sure, I understand. I can either terminate her as a WHUK customer, ban her from the forum, and make her even worse. She obviously has way more time on her hands than I have, and I don't fancy chasing her all over the internet.

Second option, I can treat her comments as they are, moronic. If you aren't happy with something, to the extent that Cassie claims, you would have moved long ago. None of this rubbish about the hassle of moving. Even if she wasn't happy with us, she could just stay away from the forums. It takes someone "special" to constantly post on a forum of a company you supposedly hate, but won't move from.

You are to be commended in having a (largely) uncensored forum. The fact that you are not perfect and were prepared to take criticism is a point in your favour IMO, (and was certainly instrumental in my decision to recommend you as a web host).

However, not all of Cassie's objections were moronic (sic) and while I'm sure you had few options regarding Front Page Extensions, that didn't make her (genuine) problem any less. I beleive her original complaint was that users were not informed by email that the extensions would be removed. It seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable request and would set you apart from other web hosts who are fond of making changes that break scripts, without letting the clients know (Fasthosts for example).

[John]

Originally Posted by black-dog

You are to be commended in having a (largely) uncensored forum. The fact that you are not perfect and were prepared to take criticism is a point in your favour IMO, (and was certainly instrumental in my decision to recommend you as a web host).

However, not all of Cassie's objections were moronic (sic) and while I'm sure you had few options regarding Front Page Extensions, that didn't make her (genuine) problem any less. I beleive her original complaint was that users were not informed by email that the extensions would be removed. It seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable request and would set you apart from other web hosts who are fond of making changes that break scripts, without letting the clients know (Fasthosts for example).

Is this were a case of a recommendation, or legitimate complaint, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. I believe Administrator is best placed to point out some of her more colourful posts, as he spends more time on the forum than me.

It's not about ignoring recommendations, as you can see they get seriously taken notice of here. We aren't arrogant to think that we can't improve further. Feel free to read up on some of her 300 odd posts, if you have time. You will soon see how old and boring it gets, with little intelligent discussion.

[Administrator]

Our technical support team found some websites injected which had frontpage extensions enabled and the hackers had huge list of domains in their database. Either we should have allowed them to inject all websites in 24 - 48 hours or disable source of those injections immediately, we removed Frontpage rpm immediately from all our cpanel shared hosting servers immediadtely to disappoint the hackers.

We care for your websites and we know what is good for your website and what should be done to avoid any security problems. Your website won't go down if we disable frontpage extensions as such action will only prevent you from making any changes to your websites using frontpage extensions.

If Cassie was expecting 1 month prior notification then such solution was not possible for us. We can't risk security of all other websites hosted on same shared server just for the sake of one customer.

Please read her old posts as suggested by John. She has been troubled by many personal as well as health problems and critising WHUK helps her to feel better. We have no issues with her criticism and we will continue with the same in future as well.

[jon123]

Yes i have to agree that it is far better to make sure you have the full picture before making judgements. Am suprised it took so long for one of you to mention previous posts and threads.

I fully agree with Cassie that an email should have been issued to all clients before FP ex were turned off, even if you weren't able to give any prior warning, but this is just one issue of many.

I think though that having read all of Cassie's posts since her arrival here, some if not most, (like the one above), are a bit 'tongue in cheek'. I can imagine her sitting at home having a good laugh whilst reading this thread, I know i am.