Most Web Hosting Review Websites Are Fake

So you’re looking for a web host where you can build that website/webcomic/webseries/weblog/webwhatever that will make you rich and famous (or at least, well known with your bills paid on time). You’re reading some reviews of web hosts and wondering how they can all be the very best host around. Well here’s some news for you: the vast majority of those reviews were written by a paid writer. Here are some questions to ask yourself when reading those reviews:

How Many Sites Does the Reviewer Run?

When the reviewer puts themselves forth as some kind of expert on web hosts, you have to wonder, how did they become so informed on the subject? How can they give a full page review of all these different websites? The only way these guys could really be being honest in all these reviews is if they had actually subscribed to, and built a website with, every single one of these hosts, and then developed that site over several months to see how the host performs over time. Anyone running dozens of websites at once is someone that doesn’t have time to write reviews of web hosting sites.

Does the Extra Dollar Really Matter?

There are web hosting review sites out there that praise one web host or another for being mere pennies less expensive than the nearest competitor. If you can actually build a successful website, one that will pay for the hosting and registration fees many times over, do you really care that you saved fifty cents on the hosting costs? Unless you’re just starting out and have a budget of exactly $7.49 to build your website, you really don’t care that the other host costs $7.99.

You know who does, though? A paid writer who’s been told to explain why his client’s hosting site is better than the nearly-identical competitor’s hosting site, and is really grasping for straws when it comes to finding a difference between the two.

This is no slight against paid writers. Paid writers make the web go ’round, really, and what are we really all blogging for if not to make some money? What you won’t get from a paid writer, however, is impartiality.

Where’s the Money in Reviewing Web Hosts?

You have to wonder where the writer is getting his end. Is there any money to be had in writing honest, unbiased reviews? Is there any money to be had in giving negative reviews to crummy web hosts? When you’re making your money through affiliate sales of memberships to the very site you’re reviewing, chances are you’re not going to dedicate much discussion to their rude and dismissive customer service, their hidden fees or the fact that they ban and block any remotely controversial website after the very first visitor complaint.

If you want honest reviews of web hosts, nine times out of ten you’re better off just finding a website you like and seeing who hosts it, or else asking any friend with webmastering/blogging experience who they might recommend. If you want impartiality from some anonymous reviewer, you may as well ask for an unbiased opinion from television commercials.

National Security and Intelligence under the Obama Administration

The remaining half of Obama’s first term continues to face difficult issues with respect to the economy, education and healthcare. Security is one issue often fading behind the prominence of job creation and federal deficit. Obama must still contend with ending two wars, securing the borders and a Wikileak in intelligence. The Administration has dealt with national security globally while concerns rest with securing the border. Issues revolving around national security could partially define the remainder of Obama’s term.

In 2007, Senator Obama stated support for the war in Afghanistan not Iraq. Efforts to exit Iraq continue as the Obama Administration no longer view Iraq a threat to security. The war in Afghanistan was ramped with addition of more troops this past year. Afghanistan and Pakistan are believed the residence of Al Qaeda radicals intent on America’s destruction. However, Obama removed the terrorist label from his May 27 document covering national security and Al Qaeda. His intent was to view extremist as enemies and not label the peaceful Islam community.

Nuclear proliferation continues to be one of Obama’s primary global concerns. His push for recent Senate approval of the Strategic Arms Reduction treaty, or START, proves Obama is serious about weapon reduction. The START treaty placed limitations on the number of nuclear weapons for Russia and the United States while incorporating a system of inspection. Obama hopes Russia will provide support against nuclear development in Iran. It could have been a good move toward improving national security and received strong bipartisan support including former President George Bush Sr.

President Obama continued global cooperation on national security by establishing the Center for Excellence with China during the visit with China’s President Hu. The goal of the center is a collaborative effort to share technology and improve security in China and Asia. Opposition to the center views an opportunity for China to gain and use American nuclear technology. China is a country holding considerable American debt and wants to establish a new role as a superpower.

There is still question concerning domestic security and the borders along Mexico. Obama has clearly expressed the southern border is a federal concern after the suit against Arizona’s immigration law. Obama does not seem to have a clear plan for dealing with border security as stated by Peter King, the new Congressional Chairman of Homeland security. This followed Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano’s scrapping the construction of a border fence.

Obama also must contend with leaks in intelligence as classified documents have found there way onto Wikileaks. It shows a definitive weakness within the intelligence community and could be problematic in future global collaborations.

Obama’s effort in establishing national security appears to concern global operations over domestic. The Mexican border is a potential entrance point for future “enemies” and Obama should secure the southern border from potential threat. Without domestic security, a single nuclear or biological weapon could be devastating to the United States. Global arm reduction without domestic security is not beneficial to national security.