Host Monster Turns On Customer, Shuts Down Blog Without Warning Or Sensical Explanation
Web hosting company Host Monster only has so many SQLs to hand out to people, and can't go around passing them out willy-nilly. Why, there are probably websites in Africa that don't have any SQLs. We're not really sure what "SQL" is but we think it's used to store blog entries; whatever it is, Joe Posnanski used too much of it. The Kansas City Star/Sports Illustrated reporter upgraded his hosting package a few months ago and was assured by Host Monster that there'd be no problems as his professional blog drew more traffic. "No problems," except that last Friday they permanently closed his account without warning.
You can't say Posnanski didn't try to anticipate traffic growth and plan ahead, which makes it even weirder that Host Monster couldn't somehow educate him—or their customer service rep—about this disastrous SQL minefield.
A few months ago, when this blog really started to get pretty heavy traffic, I realized that I needed to get on a better plan, one that gave me more … whatever it is.
So I called my Web hosting provider and they told me that it would be a good idea to upgrade my server or, to be more specific, they thought it would be a good idea for me to pay $40 per month for hosting rather than the 10 bucks or whatever I was paying originally. I'm pretty sure I had to pay like a year up front.
That conversation, by the way, was boring and not worth reliving except to point out that, one, they started charging me significantly more money, and, two, the salesman's precise words were, "Oh yeah, you will have no problems now." Both of these concepts play prominently in our tale.
OK! No more problems! So, I have to admit being surprised by this small problem of them suddenly and without warning cutting off my site. I called up Host Monster, and connected to some guy whose basic job, evidently, was to know nothing. Every company has to have several people who know nothing - these are the ones you put out front so that customers feel guilty for yelling at them. After all, they KNOW NOTHING. What are you going to do, just scream madly at the people who know nothing? It's not their fault. The Know Nothing people are the ones who tell you that your plane has been canceled on sunny days, your hotel room is not ready, your car reservation isn't in the system. And this KN guy basically explained that they had permanently suspended my account … I could not get it back.
The reason for this? Apparently, it had something to do with too many MySQLs.
"Yes, the problem was definitely SQLs," he explained again.
Unfortunately, that was all he could explain—the Know Nothing wasn't able to provide any specific details about just how Posnanki's small-time blog (in terms of bells and whistles, at least) could become so onerous to HostMonster that they needed to nuke it without any warning, not even an email. In fact, the only info the rep was able to provide was that the owner of Host Monster personally sent down the kill order:
And he explained that the president of the company, Matt,* had just 20 minutes earlier written a note that my account should be closed because it was taking up too much bandwidth or memory or whatever the hell it is that servers use.
Our questions:
- Why couldn't Host Monster contact Posnanski to address the problem before taking such drastic action? Most bloggers have limited knowledge of how the hosting side of their hosting packages work. They're sort of relying on the expertise of the company to let them know what to do.
- Why was it permanently closed, with no hope of appeal? If the problem was with his blog installation using too many, uh, SQLs, and not a content violation, why couldn't they help him fix it?
- Why couldn't Host Monster optimize its blogging packages to reduce the strain on their back-end? When we signed up with Dreamhost and auto-installed a Wordpress blog, for example, the installation came pre-installed with an optional plug-in that reduced the number of calls to the server, we think to prevent exactly this kind of SQL issue.
Side note: we really like that Posnanski has revived the term "Know Nothing" to apply to the front-line of scripted CSRs, and we may start using it more frequently.
"Hosts and Monsters" [Joe Posnanski] (Thanks to Jason!)
Post a comment
Comments:
Wow HostMonster. Guess who I'm NEVER hosting with? You!
Go go Dream Host!
I'd love to know what Monster Cable thinks of this.
I'm not sure how this is going to help my game of MiniGolf :-)
I use Dreamhost. Haven't had a problem yet.
I used to work for Host Monster/BlueHost/FastDomain. This is a common issue. They host sites that are mainly ma and pa shops that are to cheap to get real hosting provider. They tried to provide good customer service but they grew too big so they had to hire unqualified people to answer the phones.
Basically, if I were the OP, I would move over to MediaTemple and pay the $20 a month. MediaTemple uses cloud (distributed) servers so they can handle all the extra SQL queries being done.
maybe he should send an email to Monster Cable complaining about HostMonster's lack of service.
That way Monster Cable would be alerted to someone infringing on their trademark so they could take appropriate actions.
I was just about to say that- yeah, turn 'em in to Monster Cable... bwahahahahahahaha!
So if you created some sort of computer utility that managed Cookies on your computer, and called it, oh, Cookie Monster- you'd be sued by both Monster Cable and the muppets?
Perhaps the company is going under b/c they are/were being sued by Monster Cable, and Monster won the company, and he had something bad about them on his blog, like a link to the hanger study. Just my 2 cents.
These Host Monster guys won't be around long. Monster Cable should get around to suing them soon.
Ah yes, in special cases like this, when an EECB won't do the trick, an email to Monster Cable will :-)
@wcnghj: While this is true, someone who doesn't even know what MySQL is will have some major issues trying to setup and manage a VPS.
So now he's paying for a VPS and will have to hire a developer/admin to set up his server for him.
so apparently many companies with "monster" in them aren't the greatest choice
@lannister80: I concur. Dreamhost has been, if you'll pardon me, a dream host. Even though the customer support is sometimes not always helpful, they are ALWAYS there. Having a problem at 3am? Someone is still gonna get back to you within five minutes. Plus for some reason I keep gaining disk space and bandwidth every week. There is no way I'll be using up 6000 gigs of bandwidth, ever, but I have it if I need it.
@snowburnt: You should have been around months ago, back when that joke first started circulating. :P
That's not to say that it isn't still hilarious. I'm just an asshole, and I had to point out that it's been in use for awhile now, 'cause I don't like it when other people get attention for doing clever things, and I can't be arsed to be clever myself.
"Sensical" would be an awesome name for a calcium supplement.
It's odd to read this story on Consumerist after already reading it at the actual blog. I never thought about submitting it.
@BrandonOBrien: Ehh, a decent VPS can be had for about $35/month+6 for cpanel.
That would make it much easier to manage.
That's too bad, I've always liked Hostmonster. Although I'll admit my own blog never gets that much traffic, so they're probably not looking to cut me off.
Unless you have an active roll in the web hosting industry you won't understand the need to shut down a website immediately without warning if their account is causing issues on the server. Shared hosting servers can host hundreds if not sometimes thousands (the crazy overselling hosts) of other customers and domains, and if one gets out of hand it affects every other customer on that server. Which is why its usually not possible to simply let the site continue to crash the server while the host waits for a reply from the site owner.
While I agree that they should have provided more communication after the fact, the OP needs to understand that the host looks after the majority of its customers. And unfortunately that sometimes means pissing one customer off.
(btw i have no affiliation with this company)
Uh, I'm going to go against the grain here - it sounds like a CSR who was talking and didn't know what they were talking about. HM has outsourced CSRs, I believe, who handle various shared hosting providers. HM has been nothing but spectacular for me after I had massive trouble with Dreamhost several years back...downtime daily for months, and no support from DH. And the guy who owns DH and several other shared providers actually has a public blog and maintains a public e-mail - the guy in the article could have easily sent an e-mail asking for an explanation and why there was no notification. I'm thinking this may have been unintentional failure on DH's part, and then the CSR was just making it worse.
At a guess, his account got hacked and was being used maliciously/spammily at great volume; that's the kind of circumstance that would lead to an immediate kill order. For example, if he'd been hacked by a spambot and was sending out thousands of spam emails per minute, that not only destabilizes the host servers but also gets their IP in danger for blacklisting.
If that's the case, I'm not saying they handled it well - they should be protecting their paying customer, not punishing him for a breach - but it would make the high-level shutdown make sense.
@meltingcube: I don't find your argument highly compelling, but perhaps there was some reason they had to temporarily disable his account that I would understand if I played an "active roll in the web hosting industry".
That IN NO WAY justifies stonewalling his attempts to find out what went wrong, and trying to find out how to fix it.
Steve Hightower: Hold on Ced, imma go ask that fine black woman out on a date, ill be right back.
Cedric: *Grabs Steve by the arm* WAIT STEVE! You can't go up to that woman and ask her out on a date all willy-nilly!
@eekfuh: I concur. MediaTemple is t3h rox0r5!
I have a VPS through them and it just works. Period. Great service and support. $500 / year.
The really good companies mix the "know nothings" in with the good CSRs and TSRs in order to make it more difficult to pin down who customers need to ignore.
If the best description of the problem they can come up with is "too many SQLs", they might as hang a virtual sign up saying "Abandon Hope All Ye That Host Here".
A CSR for a web host ought to know what a database is and know the difference between space, bandwidth and hits.
As someone who works in the industry of web development and server management, this article just blows my mind.
SQL (not SQLs...) stands for structured query language. It is basically a set of command syntaxes to interact with a database. For example, to insert a new record, update a record(s), select a record(s), or delete a record.. etc.
mySQL, is simply a database engine that runs using SQL. You can have multiple mySQL databases at any given time, for whatever reason. A web host has all the power in the world to
A) limit how many mySQL databases can be made per user
B) put a resource limit per account (x amount of queries can be made per a given time, etc)
Also, while I'm not one to blame the OP... I think the OP should probably better verse himself in the world of the resources he's using and how's he's using. Not only does make him able to have intelligent conversations with people who know this field already, but also he can better defend himself rather than being walked all over on a company.
With my experience with hosting companies, they'd probably try to push him to a dedicated server, ($150+ a month, at LEAST) because his account is being too intensive on the database and it's causing a "detriment" to other users on the same server.
Also, it makes me sick to my stomach that people refer to it as "SQLs" as it makes no sense by itself. "It must be the SQLs" Seriously? Uh. Kill. me. now. Sorry, web developer pet peeve.
[/rant]
your correct. IF the OP doesnt know what SQL's are than wtf is he doing hosting a blog etc...
its like giving someone a wrench thats never worked on a car before
Just so you know, the "OP" was not the OP at all here - Posnanski put this on his own blog. And the guy's one of the premier baseball writers in the country both in terms of quality and popularity. So...while he may have been shortsighted, he probably also does not need to spend a whole lot of his life chasing CSRs and presumably won't.
And I suspect he posted the story more for its entertainment value than for its rant value.
So apparently host monster hasn't been sued by monster cable yet for stealing their name? Thats pretty odd
and so now you go from hostmonster to goaddy?? it is one thing to be a blogger and not understand hosting - but, its a completely different thing to not learn from your same mistake. You are going from one crappy, massively oversold host to another.. you really expect things to be different? go to a top shelf provider that specializes in hosting applications - spend the extra $10 a month and you can avoid this issue - or, keep being cheap, buying bargain basement services and then complain when they suspend you for CPU or other hidden limitations you do not understand (ie SQL)
@eekfuh: I actually have some sites with hostmonster, and they shut me down once without warning (although they claimed they sent me an e-mail). Had to do with an old php site I had migrated up there and forgot about (and was open as all getup and used as a spam gateway... oops.). Anyway, they deleted everything I had up there, with no backup whatsoever.
They were kind enough to reinstate my account, but I had to rebuild from my backups and in some cases from scratch.
Of course, I'm thinking they should really be held accountable for their unlimited claims if in fact that's what they sold you. Or if nothing else, suspend traffic to a site if something suspicious is happening (i.e. too much CPU, mail, whatever) until they can reach out to the owner of the site to fix it. This "blow it away without warning" mentality should get them sued into oblivion.
Hope he had his blog backed up, posts plus comments. BAD!
Hosting is not a good place to save money! For $20 or $30 a month, you can get good, secure hosting that doesn't pull the plug on you like this. If this (above) kind of situation happens to you and your site is your revenue stream, you're cooked, at least for a while.
I know people with cheap hosting who have their sites hacked. A friend, hosted by Network Solutions, had her site removed from Google's database because NetSol had allowed her site to be hacked, filled with mini-links to prescription drug sites. It looked to Google like she was selling links, so they deleted her from their databases. Another friend, NOT at NetSol, had a similar problem. BIG disruption of revenue stream! Not worth it!
Hey, whats with that jab at GoDaddy? I have been with them for years and the few times (2) I have needed them on the phone I (1) spoke to a human in less than 10 minutes (2) the human spoke clear english (3) the human knew what he/she was talking about and fixed my problem.
They are also cheap. Oh, if that wasnt enough, they have also made a video of Danica Patrick taking a shower and made it freely available on their website. What more could you want?
@bdgbill: GoDaddy is making it extremely difficult for me to go after a website that they host that is stealing copyrighted pictures from me and other Flickr users and putting them up as their own.
Me too. I then started looking for the above comment, expecting something a little more snazzier, like:
I THOUGHT YOU GOT MORE BANDWIDTH OUT OF THOSE FANCY MONSTER CABLES
It's pretty clear from the site's terms and conditions:
UNLIMITED" USAGE POLICIES AND DEFINITIONS
1. What "Unlimited" means. HostMonster.Com does not set an arbitrary limit or cap on the amount of resources a single Subscriber can use. In good faith and subject to these Terms, HostMonster.Com makes every commercially reasonable effort to provide its Subscribers with all the storage and bandwidth resources needed to power their web sites successfully, as long as the Subscriber's use of the service complies with these Terms. By not setting limits on key resources, we are able to provide simple, consistent pricing to our Subscribers as they grow their websites. As a result, a typical website may experience periods of great popularity and resulting increased storage without experiencing any associated increase in hosting charges.
webhostingtalk.com is a great place to find out about web hosting. It is through them that I found Site5.
Funny how monster has become so generic in it's consumer usage, like "hut" or "shack".
I propose funnier names that are not just another way to say "big" or otherwise "enormous to the point of fright or absurdity". Nay, I demand them.
Bleh, for $40/month one can get a semi-private VPS.
Shared hosts advertise unlimited everything but it's impossible to offer infinite disk space and bandwidth.
--
I do agree he should have had a 7 day warning.