Reviewing web hosts based on comparing feature checklists? Oh dear.
For those who aren't aware, feature checklists for web hosting services are 90% bullshit. Not that they aren't true, but the items that get checked off are often trivial nonsense which are implicitly available from any commodity hosting provider like "control panel", "access logs", or "password protected directories".
The real differentiators are usually things which don't show up in marketing materials, like "is the support team halfway competent" or "how badly does this provider try to nickel and dime you". Which is why you need to actually work with the provider to give them a meaningful review.
After doing web hosting reviews for over a decade now... 99.9% of the people do any form of review are lying or manipulating things for affiliate commissions. The few that aren't, most don't actually know what reviewing/benchmarking/testing well looks like.
It's atrocious. And Google just pumps this garbage. I need to finish writing about all bullshit from big brands doing these reviews. CNET is just one easy example.
For those who aren't aware, feature checklists for web hosting services are 90% bullshit. Not that they aren't true, but the items that get checked off are often trivial nonsense which are implicitly available from any commodity hosting provider like "control panel", "access logs", or "password protected directories".
The real differentiators are usually things which don't show up in marketing materials, like "is the support team halfway competent" or "how badly does this provider try to nickel and dime you". Which is why you need to actually work with the provider to give them a meaningful review.