[ikk157]

I already have created a post about Supporting Sponsors but I thought creating this topic as a suggestion because of recent developments at Post4VPS. My suggestion is to Make Google Review or Facebook Review a requirement for having a VPS here. Especially for those who unable to provide a proper link-back. But I think it should go for all VPS holders.

There are practical limitations and downsides of this link back rule. These links won't have any value unless it's from a site which regularly updated. Random links don't help sites anymore. So this kind of links won't help sponsor much anyway. It's a headache for VPS holders too if the person doesn't have a website. Also if you can't provide a link then the sponsor gets very little in return for what he gives us.

Personally I think Google Reviews or Facebook Reviews are the best solutions for this. We all use either of these services or both. So it's quite easy to do it. These ratings and reviews are very valuable for providers, So much more than a back-link. New providers will able to build-up real testimonials and reviews this way which would increase their reputation and development of the brand name.

This is not something hard for VPS holders either. All you have to do is use the server for a month or so then write a positive review at Google or Facebook or both. These product reviews would give our sponsors more value than anything we offer right now.

I know none of us to want to do extra work but I think sponsors deserve it. Also, this might help us to attract more sponsors too. After all, they would get genuine product reviews from real people who use their service.

I strongly agree with your suggestion of making positive reviews to our beloved sponsors here at post4vps.

And especially your point where you’ve mentioned that a backlink won’t really do much for the sponsor. A backlink would only be effective if it’s put in sites with a good amount of traffic, which increases the chances of attracting more people to the sponsor (which is the entire point of having backlinks). However, most of us here at post4vps don’t have sites with that much, if any, traffic.... heck, some people over here dont have sites to beginning with. 

So what has been happening is even though we do have backlinks to our sponsors, no one is really looking at them simply because our sites don’t have enough traffic. 

This is exactly why we lost HostLease as a sponsor. They used to get a lot of traffic and potential customers through the backlinks at the beginning, so sponsoring the VPSs actually allowed them to get more sales which pay for the sponsored VPSs. However, they no longer get any traffic from those backlinks (due to the reason I’ve mentioned above), so they saw that keeping the sponsorship wasn’t benefitting them anymore. And it’s only a matter of time before the other sponsors might end up doing the same.

However, unlike backlinks which require the sites to have a good amount of traffic, reviews at major services such as trustpilot would be much more beneficial as those have huge amounts of traffic, increasing the odds of people actually seeing your review.

I do have one concern though, if the holders find negative aspects with their VPS (e.g. performance issues, not having a panel, etc...), it seems wrong and untruthful to lie in the review and make it seen like everything is fine. Sure we’re trying to encourage people to use our sponsors, but making fake/untruthful reviews is against my morals.

[deanhills]

This is exactly why we lost HostLease as a sponsor. They used to get a lot of traffic and potential customers through the backlinks at the beginning, so sponsoring the VPSs actually allowed them to get more sales which pay for the sponsored VPSs. However, they no longer get any traffic from those backlinks (due to the reason I’ve mentioned above), so they saw that keeping the sponsorship wasn’t benefitting them anymore. And it’s only a matter of time before the other sponsors might end up doing the same.

With respect and hopefully not to be seen as lack of appreciation to Hostlease as we did enjoy their VPSs, but regarding the claim about "used to get a lot of traffic", this puzzles me.  I specifically don't get the narrative of the traffic and how it generated more sales.  Like how was that measured specifically?  Given in particular that the VPS Plans were being chopped and changed all of the time right from the beginning at end of 2018 to date.  Again you can check the Announcements.  First we had a VPS 15 then VPS 16 on an experimental basis.  Then VPS 15 was withdrawn, then returned, then VPS 16 cancelled and VPS 17 created. And later VPS 18.  Then a monster VPS 16 added back as a gift. Then over the last few months VPS 17 was dropped - we were first told temporarily to overhaul it - then permanently.  We were down to only VPS 18 (2) and VPS 16 (on an end of life basis) over the last few months. Chopping and changing all of the time. So hence also plenty of turnaround in VPS Holders.  I can't see how the traffic could have been measured in those circumstances.  Where did Hostlease get the stats from to measure the performance?

Furthermore, if you check through all of the announcements over the last 14 months we've been experiencing plenty of downtime with Hostlease VPSs compared from before including support discussions informing us the VPSs were down.  A few months back we were told that the sponsorship would end with immediate effect, only to have it reinstated much later with a couple or more weeks of down time when the VPSs had to undergo maintenance yet again - or that is what we were told had to happen.  Like if you check through the announcements you will note countless discussions about issues that Hostlease was experiencing that resulted in down time of the VPSs.  The VPSs were great VPSs, and popular particularly for use as games servers, if and when they were up and running.  But the regular down times couldn't have been good for traffic particularly the down time of longer duration.  So I'm very curious to see how the stats have been generated.

[xdude]

@ikk157

About negative reviews, Before we implement this (if it gonna happen), we need to set up some sort of framework for this. For example, the sponsor does need to have a FB page as well as a Google product rating already to get this done. And Then VPS holder should try the server at least one month before doing this. Plus it's better to do the forum review first, starting a conversation with the sponsor about the VPS and the service. Only after then, this rating should be done. So if the server has problems then by the end of the month you can get fixed by the sponsor or go for another VPS. If you don't use the VPS then no need to do the rating about it. That way no negative ratings will happen.

About traffic I agree with @deanhills it's not about traffic. If they say the sponsorship is not beneficial for then yes that might be true. There might be more pressing reasons than that but this is what they have given and I respect that. It was not a smooth ride but they offered us a lot all these years. So we are grateful. I don't think any sponsor gets much traffic from those member links or even from the forum links. Probably some from those Review posts which have gone to Google search. What you get from links is either authority or traffic. Here from these forum links, they get some authority backlinks to their sites. Which would help them SEO-wise. Apart from that not a lot.

[ikk157]

With respect and hopefully not to be seen as lack of appreciation to Hostlease as we did enjoy their VPSs, but regarding the claim about "used to get a lot of traffic", this puzzles me.  I specifically don't get the narrative of the traffic and how it generated more sales.  Like how was that measured specifically?  Given in particular that the VPS Plans were being chopped and changed all of the time right from the beginning at end of 2018 to date.  Again you can check the Announcements.  First we had a VPS 15 then VPS 16 on an experimental basis.  Then VPS 15 was withdrawn, then returned, then VPS 16 cancelled and VPS 17 created. And later VPS 18.  Then a monster VPS 16 added back as a gift. Then over the last few months VPS 17 was dropped - we were first told temporarily to overhaul it - then permanently.  We were down to only VPS 18 (2) and VPS 16 (on an end of life basis) over the last few months. Chopping and changing all of the time. So hence also plenty of turnaround in VPS Holders.  I can't see how the traffic could have been measured in those circumstances.  Where did Hostlease get the stats from to measure the performance?

Furthermore, if you check through all of the announcements over the last 14 months we've been experiencing plenty of downtime with Hostlease VPSs compared from before including support discussions informing us the VPSs were down.  A few months back we were told that the sponsorship would end with immediate effect, only to have it reinstated much later with a couple or more weeks of down time when the VPSs had to undergo maintenance yet again - or that is what we were told had to happen.  Like if you check through the announcements you will note countless discussions about issues that Hostlease was experiencing that resulted in down time of the VPSs.  The VPSs were great VPSs, and popular particularly for use as games servers, if and when they were up and running.  But the regular down times couldn't have been good for traffic particularly the down time of longer duration.  So I'm very curious to see how the stats have been generated.

As for how the stats were generated and all of that, I can’t answer that as I’m (obviously) not part of HostLease nor was in any way part of said stats. I’m just going off of what I’ve been told by their staff members... never bothered asking for the stats, I just took their word for it.

Anyways that doesn’t matter as we can’t deny the fact that the backlinks aren’t giving our sponsors what they deserve. I stand by my point that if the site where the backlinks are doesn’t get much traffic, not enough people would be directed to the sponsor.

---

@ikk157

About negative reviews, Before we implement this (if it gonna happen), we need to set up some sort of framework for this. For example, the sponsor does need to have a FB page as well as a Google product rating already to get this done. And Then VPS holder should try the server at least one month before doing this. Plus it's better to do the forum review first, starting a conversation with the sponsor about the VPS and the service. Only after then, this rating should be done. So if the server has problems then by the end of the month you can get fixed by the sponsor or go for another VPS. If you don't use the VPS then no need to do the rating about it. That way no negative ratings will happen.

About traffic I agree with @deanhills it's not about traffic. If they say the sponsorship is not beneficial for then yes that might be true. There might be more pressing reasons than that but this is what they have given and I respect that. It was not a smooth ride but they offered us a lot all these years. So we are grateful. I don't think any sponsor gets much traffic from those member links or even from the forum links.  Probably some from those Review posts which have gone to Google search. What you get from links is either authority or traffic. Here from these forum links, they get some authority backlinks to their sites. Which would help them SEO-wise. Apart from that not a lot.

Great suggestion with the “framework” that can be implemented to keep the reviews both positive and honest. The forum reviews are already a requirement to several VPSs over here, so that’s nothing out of the ordinary, which is great news!

I also like the idea of having the sponsor working directly with the holder’s feedback and improving based on that, some sponsors over here already do that, but unfortunately the majority aren’t. We can’t blame them though since afterall, they’re sponsoring these VPSs absolutely free of charge.

As for this entire traffic thing, you seem to be missing the point. Here’s a practical example:

Let’s say I host a site that gets 1000 visits per day. Now if i put in somewhere in that site (such as the header or footer) a VirMach hyperlink such as “Powered by VirMach” (or something more attractive), there’s a good chance that some of those 1000 visits might click on it to know more, and are then taken to the sponsors site, and some would be attracted by their offerings/prices and end up buying a VPS from the sponsor. Which increases their sales!

Now let’s say my site only gets 5 visits per day, the odds of the above happening is significantly less to none. 

I hope that clarifies my point. If not, please do let me know.

[deanhills]

Anyways that doesn’t matter as we can’t deny the fact that the backlinks aren’t giving our sponsors what they deserve. I stand by my point that if the site where the backlinks are doesn’t get much traffic, not enough people would be directed to the sponsor.

I totally agree @ikk157. This is an excellent discussion and hopefully it can lead to something firm where we can improve the service that is available to sponsors so that would increase the value of the sponsorship for them.

[tryp4vps]

....... Just a suggestion, instead of debating over which platform to choose, why not leave it on the users? Like make a "review on any social media platform" a general requirement, and users can do their part on the platform they are most active. I guess that'd be fair for both the sponsor and the VPS holder instead of specifying a particular platform for the person to post (where he may not be active at all for instance).

I like this suggestion and we should provide more options for our forum members. For those who love Google and Facebook, they can keep using them but for the others, they shall be allowed to use other platforms they may suggest on their own. And it also brings great diversity of link sources which is good for our sponsors.

@tryp4vps @sohamb03

Sorry guys Twitter has no use in this particular case. You can use Twitter has something additional to this. We use the Product rating option of Google and Facebook. The review is part of that. Twitter doesn't have this option. Also, it's built for something different. Tweets are like short term announcements. Unless it's something that will go viral like crazy it just dies without reaching anyone or anywhere. Unless you guys have Twitter accounts that have 1000's of followers who are crazy about buying web hosting these won't become viral. Even if you guys have still these Tweets won't last long. We are talking about Product Ratings and these things need to last long.

Sorry I would say I disagree. I believe very few of our members can write lengthy Product Rating reviews, even in their own languages.

Instead, many members should be able to write short reviews, or use social media platforms to help promote lengthy reviews written by other capable members.

And in fact I can see a lots of Twitter tweets can last very long in search engines, while many poorly written Product Rating reviews from Google or Facebook just disappear very fast.

[xdude]

@tryp4vps

There is no such thing as Product Rating reviews from Google or Facebook just disappears very fast or disappears. These have nothing to do with search engines. These reviews are there to stay forever for those who want to check the FB product page or Google product review section. Also, there is no such thing as poorly written reviews in this case. These are not benchmarks or technical stuff. You just write a few sentences about how you like the product. When you look at the forum posts I'm sure all members here can manage than in English and even better in their own language.

Writing reviews in random social media sites won't give fast results like this. If someone wants to do it additionally then it's all fine. Twitter doesn't work at all in this case. Twitter doesn't work that way. Also not at all in this case unless its a quite big account related to hosting with an actively engaging follow base. Otherwise, you just write a Tweet and it gets buried unless millions of Tweets happen every day. I know this because I use Twitter for my work. There are ways and niches which can use Twitter traffic but Web Hosting is not one of those. Plus Twitter is not for product reviews at all. Apart from shout-out like hey I used to this and it's great.

@ikk157

Well these links like "Powered by ABC", "Hosted by ABC" came in the old days when all links were counted by Google. Footer links like helped us to gain so well in Google Rankings. It has never been worked at a direct visitor method. Because of several reasons, It's once in a blue moon someone looks at footer links like these. Stats are like 100/20,000. If someone noticed most of them understand these or have need to click these links. For example, I have this site about fish keeping and it used to get about 20,000 visitors a month. I had a Sponsored link at the bottom and it wouldn't get even 100 clicks per month. Even though it looks possible mathamatically it doesn't happen like that in reality. Batter Ads works lot better.

[ikk157]

@tryp4vps

There is no such thing as Product Rating reviews from Google or Facebook just disappears very fast or disappears. These have nothing to do with search engines. These reviews are there to stay forever for those who want to check the FB product page or Google product review section. Also, there is no such thing as poorly written reviews in this case. These are not benchmarks or technical stuff. You just write a few sentences about how you like the product. When you look at the forum posts I'm sure all members here can manage than in English and even better in their own language.

Writing reviews in random social media sites won't give fast results like this. If someone wants to do it additionally then it's all fine. Twitter doesn't work at all in this case. Twitter doesn't work that way. Also not at all in this case unless its a quite big account related to hosting with an actively engaging follow base. Otherwise, you just write a Tweet and it gets buried unless millions of Tweets happen every day. I know this because I use Twitter for my work. There are ways and niches which can use Twitter traffic but Web Hosting is not one of those. Plus Twitter is not for product reviews at all. Apart from shout-out like hey I used to this and it's great.

@ikk157

Well these links like "Powered by ABC", "Hosted by ABC" came in the old days when all links were counted by Google. Footer links like helped us to gain so well in Google Rankings. It has never been worked at a direct visitor method. Because of several reasons, It's once in a blue moon someone looks at footer links like these. Stats are like 100/20,000. If someone noticed most of them understand these or have need to click these links. For example, I have this site about fish keeping and it used to get about 20,000 visitors a month. I had a Sponsored link at the bottom and it wouldn't get even 100 clicks per month. Even though it looks possible mathamatically it doesn't happen like that in reality. Batter Ads works lot better.

I absolutely agree with your point!

Thing is, it’s not that the ads themselves are getting outdated or are simply bad... it’s just that people now (myself included) know how to differentiate between an ad and the site’s actual content. So if i came specifically for the site’s content, why would I even bother checking the ads out? I’m sure many people nowadays do the same.

Years back, many people were not that great with telling ads apart from site content (or simply never knew the actual reason those ads were there). So they’d think they’re part of the site’s content and click on them. A lot of ads blend really well with the site content and ad companies have been trying so hard to make it look as though it’s part of the site, when in reality it’s not. But those are insanely obvious now that we have evolved to tell them apart.

That’s essentially one of the key reasons why ads don’t get as many clicks as they once used to.

Obviously an ad blocker would also contribute, but it will for sure not block a backlink set by you. It only blocks known ads with known external domains.

All of which brings us back to the sole point of this thread:

Backlinks (which are pretty much an ad) are not enough to give our sponsors what they deserve!

[xdude]

Yes. It's called advertising blindness. It's worst in forums. those regular people never see the ads. One of the main reasons why it's so hard to monetize a forum and many couldn't get results using AdSense on forums. And yeah ad blockers have made it even worse.

Anyway, If we are to do this then Sponsors need to have Facebook Business Page or Google Product Review Page or both.

[tryp4vps]

@tryp4vps

There is no such thing as Product Rating reviews from Google or Facebook just disappears very fast or disappears. These have nothing to do with search engines. These reviews are there to stay forever for those who want to check the FB product page or Google product review section. Also, there is no such thing as poorly written reviews in this case. These are not benchmarks or technical stuff. You just write a few sentences about how you like the product. When you look at the forum posts I'm sure all members here can manage than in English and even better in their own language.

Writing reviews in random social media sites won't give fast results like this. If someone wants to do it additionally then it's all fine. Twitter doesn't work at all in this case. Twitter doesn't work that way. Also not at all in this case unless its a quite big account related to hosting with an actively engaging follow base. Otherwise, you just write a Tweet and it gets buried unless millions of Tweets happen every day. I know this because I use Twitter for my work......

Thank you for making your points more clear, but still I believe it is difficult to control the quality of product reviews. If many of our product reviews look spammy then they should also be called poorly written reviews. These spammy reviews may still consist of acceptable English sentences, but they can actually be harmful for our sponsors.

So I would suggest to let some members who are not good at writing to do social media promotions instead.

And I also use Twitter frequently for my work. From my own experience, it is really much more powerful than you described.