Update one line of copy on https://wordpress.org/hosting/

[chanthaboune]

I would like to update the final sentence in the second paragraph.

If you don’t need the flexibility of a full web host, you may consider getting a free blog on WordPress.com.

should be updated to read

If you need expert support, and a powerful hosting platform that grows with you, WordPress.com is the easiest way to create a free website or blog.

where "WordPress.com is the easiest way to create a free website or blog" is linked to WordPress.com. (If I knew how to make that a link, I would :) )

[Hristo Sg]

I think the proposed change doesn't make it clear that there is a difference between having a .com account and having a fully-featured hosting account with the stand-alone application installed. In my opinion it would further the confusion that many people have distinguishing between .com and .org.

[chanthaboune]

Replying to Hristo Sg:

I think the proposed change doesn't make it clear that there is a difference between having a .com account and having a fully-featured hosting account with the stand-alone application installed. In my opinion it would further the confusion that many people have distinguishing between .com and .org.

Thank you for the feedback! Do you have suggestions for what would make that delineation clearer?

[aaroncampbell]

My first main concern is that this further blurs the line and increases the confusion between .com and .org, and it appears to be a purposeful step that direction rather than an accidental result of a naming conflict from long ago.

My next big concern is that "WordPress.com is the easiest way..." is the kind of comparative claim we specifically disallow even for WordCamp sponsors - an excerpt from ​those rules:

2. Sponsors may not provide:
   • Promotional or marketing material containing comparative messages about the Sponsor, its products or services, such as “the first name in WordPress hosting”, “the easiest way to launch your site”, or “the best e-commerce plugin”

If the purpose is to get away from the message that .com isn't a "full" host, because it allows custom plugins and themes now, then maybe it would be better to just list them as a host like the rest? The built-in wording (inline instead of listed with the rest of the hosts) definitely makes it feel like a part of the .org project where the rest aren't.

It seems like that could work perfectly as part of the changes that have been teased for a while, that would open the hosting page up to a larger number of hosts that meet a set of criteria, which .com could be one of.

[chanthaboune]

Replying to aaroncampbell:

Thanks for bringing these concerns to my attention, Aaron.

My first main concern is that this further blurs the line and increases the confusion between .com and .org, and it appears to be a purposeful step that direction rather than an accidental result of a naming conflict from long ago.

I understand that there is a blurry line between the two, and I wasn't trying to capitalize on that lack of clarity. I honestly felt that this was a single sentence update with content that had already been approved for a different page on the site, and I didn't think it through.

My next big concern is that "WordPress.com is the easiest way..." is the kind of comparative claim we specifically disallow even for WordCamp sponsors - an excerpt from ​those rules:

You're right about the sponsor language, too. Once we settle on a final solution, I'll get some additional review on the copy.

If the purpose is to get away from the message that .com isn't a "full" host, because it allows custom plugins and themes now, then maybe it would be better to just list them as a host like the rest? The built-in wording (inline instead of listed with the rest of the hosts) definitely makes it feel like a part of the .org project where the rest aren't.

That is exactly the purpose, yes. And this is a fine suggestion, if it seems like it's viable.

It seems like that could work perfectly as part of the changes that have been teased for a while, that would open the hosting page up to a larger number of hosts that meet a set of criteria, which .com could be one of.

Yea, you're probably right there. Those changes have been on again/off again for a long time and then back-burnered while I was out. It is not my intention to just push that around on my plate until infinity.

[amykamala]

We could link visitors to here or a similar page to help bring clarity to the .com vs. .org confusion: ​https://wordpress.org/support/article/wordpress-vs-wordpress-com/

[Hristo Sg]

Replying to chanthaboune:

Replying to Hristo Sg:

I think the proposed change doesn't make it clear that there is a difference between having a .com account and having a fully-featured hosting account with the stand-alone application installed. In my opinion it would further the confusion that many people have distinguishing between .com and .org.

Thank you for the feedback! Do you have suggestions for what would make that delineation clearer?

I am more on the technical side of things and copy is definitely not my forte but I think Aaron's recommendation makes sense. If we want to distinguish .com as something different than other hosting companies, the copy has to reflect it. Not sure how the marketing people of .com want to present the product now but probably mentioning it as a SAAS solution compared to stand-alone app suitable for normal fully-featured hosting accounts? On the other hand if the idea is to put it on part with the "normal" hosts, it would make much more sense to be part of the group of recommended companies.

[chanthaboune]

After a bit of regrouping and excellent feedback from some additional voices, I'd like to suggest a short term path forward and with a follow up on some languishing work:

1. It sounds like a good compromise is to include WordPress.com as a listed option along with the other hosts currently there. To avoid potential issues with placement, I'd like to volunteer WordPress.com for the final entry in that list.

2. For the languishing work, I know we've had hopes for updating the offered hosts to be more up to date (including technical considerations, localization considerations, as well as general usability). I would also love some way to include Five for the Future participation in our rubric somehow.

With an eye toward "ship and iterate", what are the chances a 3-4 person working group could help with a short list of suggestions based on the latest version of the rubric that the hosting community pulled together last year?

[Hristo Sg]

Once the new layout is set in stone I will happily have our editorial team review it and update all texts for SG and provide suggestions for the common texts if such are needed.

[reeseallworth]

It should be several condenders on the list, from affordable, scalable, small to large projects, and include a method for user reviews like you do the plugins.
The ratings should be based on several factors:
Best overall

Price, Traffic, Best for power users, Support, Speed/Performance, Overall Experience, Comments on experience (just to start)

My company has thousands of WordPress customers worldwide, our experience with Dreamhost and Siteground is horrible, less than a one star rating. We had to switch the customers to more reliable hosting companies. Siteground is bad because it no longer offers unlimited plans, limited webspace, limited visits, hit those limits and it gets expensive. Dreamhost has a slew of DNS, and Server problems as well as the worst rating for support.

The list does not even include some of the other top companies, as Host Gator, Flywheel, Kinsta, WP Engine, Hostinger, A2 Hosting, InMotion, and newer companies like Green Geeks, Site5 and iPage.

It does not have to be that these are endorsed by Wordpress if that is the pressure.

I think the current list reflects badly on Wordpress

[jadonn]

I like the suggested compromise @chanthaboune provided, but I think long term the best solution is to list hosts on an informational basis as discussed and proposed by the Hosting Community team last year.

[reeseallworth]

I don't know what the hosting community suggested last year. But I think my recommendation is very clear and a great starting point. I don't like the compromise as it is so vague. It has to include user experience, ratings and comments, otherwise a company can be listed for years like the current list, maybe be great at the time of listing, and digress into bad practices etc.

Replying to jadonn:

I like the suggested compromise @chanthaboune provided, but I think long term the best solution is to list hosts on an informational basis as discussed and proposed by the Hosting Community team last year.

[SergeyBiryukov]

Related: #5500