12-06-2018, 10:05 AM
Thanks for the review @tiwil, but do you think you could make a summary of the review as it turned out much too long? Like the review reads a bit messy and unstructured - it makes it difficult for people to understand and it doesn't provide justice to the excellence of the VPS. Like in order of priority, what is it of the VPS that wowed you the most? And then what wowed you after that? Like put at least three or four of the most important needs in a VPS that were met in the first paragraph of the review - location? speed? support? high tech? A great host who was eager to provide you with a high standard and high spec VPS from an excellent Datacenter?
Would have been nice, after the summary, to provide a background paragraph with background heading about who Shadow Hosting is, that Shadow Hosting has recently donated two very high spec VPSs to post4vps with location in Germany for which competition was very high because of its above average specs. You were a lucky winner during its first Giveaway. You were given the VPS on X date, and have had the VPS for X number of days. You could have added to the background paragraph that the Datacenter is Hetzner, one of the highest quality Datacenters in Europe and also globally. Post4vps is very fortunate to have been sponsored VPSs of such high quality.
Just under the paragraph about how great Hetzner speed is, it would have been nice to include a visual speed test image that provides a summary of ping and speed. Would have been good for the VPS too. Like the speed test you advertised in the Shoutbox after you took occupation of the VPS. Would also have been great if you could have posted a second speed test taken later in the month to show comparison and consistency of the high speed. People relate good to visual images. Here is the one you advertised in the Shoutbox just after your received the VPS on 22 November 2018:
![[Image: 7820994947.png]](http://www.speedtest.net/result/7820994947.png)
And this is the one from yesterday's test:
![[Image: 7855028051.png]](http://www.speedtest.net/result/7855028051.png)
Proving consistency in the excellent speed of the VPS.
In the paragraph about experience you mention 15 minutes and VestaCP. With the way you wrote the paragraph people may think it takes minutes instead of seconds because people normally read paragraphs very fast and their eyes just catch the 15 minutes and minutes in the first few sentences instead of seconds in a later sentence. You could have made it a very simple sentence - i.e. although VestaCP could take as long as 15 minutes to download depending on the file size, in the case of your new Shadowhosting VPS it took seconds to download - indicative of how lightning fast the VPS is.
You also didn't mention specifically what the quality of the support was like - like for me that should have featured very highly, and how fast the turnaround was to the queries you had. How were your inquiries dealt with? Like the host was very keen for you to be happy with your VPS and went to considerable lengths to solve your inquiries within record time. You could have provided specific facts about why you were given more cores to meet a special need you had. Better to match the more cores with a special need, as people would wonder why a host would spread around more cores without the actual need to do so. I'm sure you meant good, but better to show factual reason for the more cores as an example of the considerable lengths the host was prepared to go for your VPS to solve the problem - he was keen for you to have a very high standard product.
I don't think it's a good idea to put trouble shooting inside the review - like ask people to solve problems that may not have anything to do with the VPS. Like it's not clear when you ask Hidden Refuge whether it was a problem with the Benchmark script/test or a technical problem with the VPS. You could have mentioned some of the problems you had but that they were overcome. Just so those from the outside who don't know and are reading the review for the first time, will understand that you have a high standard VPS, and most of your needs have been met.
For the Windows issue you could have added that the host informed us that Windows is in a beta stage of testing. That the host is hoping to add Windows soon and that testing Windows so carefully is a sign of the host's striving for a high standard of perfection in service and providing a thoroughly tested product.
Would have been nice, after the summary, to provide a background paragraph with background heading about who Shadow Hosting is, that Shadow Hosting has recently donated two very high spec VPSs to post4vps with location in Germany for which competition was very high because of its above average specs. You were a lucky winner during its first Giveaway. You were given the VPS on X date, and have had the VPS for X number of days. You could have added to the background paragraph that the Datacenter is Hetzner, one of the highest quality Datacenters in Europe and also globally. Post4vps is very fortunate to have been sponsored VPSs of such high quality.
Just under the paragraph about how great Hetzner speed is, it would have been nice to include a visual speed test image that provides a summary of ping and speed. Would have been good for the VPS too. Like the speed test you advertised in the Shoutbox after you took occupation of the VPS. Would also have been great if you could have posted a second speed test taken later in the month to show comparison and consistency of the high speed. People relate good to visual images. Here is the one you advertised in the Shoutbox just after your received the VPS on 22 November 2018:
And this is the one from yesterday's test:
Proving consistency in the excellent speed of the VPS.
In the paragraph about experience you mention 15 minutes and VestaCP. With the way you wrote the paragraph people may think it takes minutes instead of seconds because people normally read paragraphs very fast and their eyes just catch the 15 minutes and minutes in the first few sentences instead of seconds in a later sentence. You could have made it a very simple sentence - i.e. although VestaCP could take as long as 15 minutes to download depending on the file size, in the case of your new Shadowhosting VPS it took seconds to download - indicative of how lightning fast the VPS is.
You also didn't mention specifically what the quality of the support was like - like for me that should have featured very highly, and how fast the turnaround was to the queries you had. How were your inquiries dealt with? Like the host was very keen for you to be happy with your VPS and went to considerable lengths to solve your inquiries within record time. You could have provided specific facts about why you were given more cores to meet a special need you had. Better to match the more cores with a special need, as people would wonder why a host would spread around more cores without the actual need to do so. I'm sure you meant good, but better to show factual reason for the more cores as an example of the considerable lengths the host was prepared to go for your VPS to solve the problem - he was keen for you to have a very high standard product.
I don't think it's a good idea to put trouble shooting inside the review - like ask people to solve problems that may not have anything to do with the VPS. Like it's not clear when you ask Hidden Refuge whether it was a problem with the Benchmark script/test or a technical problem with the VPS. You could have mentioned some of the problems you had but that they were overcome. Just so those from the outside who don't know and are reading the review for the first time, will understand that you have a high standard VPS, and most of your needs have been met.
For the Windows issue you could have added that the host informed us that Windows is in a beta stage of testing. That the host is hoping to add Windows soon and that testing Windows so carefully is a sign of the host's striving for a high standard of perfection in service and providing a thoroughly tested product.