Originally Posted by Salathe You do have an argument, used in the sense of portraying a statement, reason or fact for or against a point. My use of the term was precisely that; not in the sense of some form of conflict or oral disagreement.

I don't have an argument, I'm providing information, there's a difference. But thanks for attempting to tell me what I'm saying.

Then your point should be not to believe what you see. Just because a host that does not oversell promises x, y, z doesn't mean you can actually have x, y, z. Right? I don't believe overselling is the monster you make it out to be (for want of a better phrase) in this topic. There are amazing hosts who oversell, amazing ones who don't. Crappy ones who oversell and crappy ones who don't. I could equally put up a topic explaining why hosts who have and support Ruby on Rails on their servers are to be avoided, giving mathematical formulae and citing published sources. Perhaps a silly example, but just as much so as targeting overselling.

My "point" is to explain what overselling is and why it's a bad thing. This also involves explaining that "What you see is not what you get". For some utterly bizarre reason you seem to be taking this almost personally and inciting specific hosts and examples in a response to somehow try and discredit my information. Why? It's illogical. My information is sound, solid and proven. Just because *you* personally have never had an issue with certain hosts that oversell does NOT make my information any less accurate or credible, nor does it "prove" that overselling isn't a bad thing.

Sure, some hosts may oversell and not have any issues. That's completely besides the point. Overselling creates risks - I've proven that, and I've even give you the maths to back it up. Should you really have to play server lotto when purchasing hosting, though? Should you have to ask your host to move you to a less overloaded server, because the one you're on is oversold to hell? No, you shouldn't. You may find it agreeable, but I don't, as do countless others.

I don't see overselling as a bad thing, even with all of your effort in trying to persuade me/us otherwise. Merely emphasising that "fact" over and over isn't going to impress much sway in my own understanding of the subject. Maybe my post was worded badly but I certainly didn't intend to "practically admit" that overselling is bad. I don't believe that for a second.

If you don't personally believe overselling is a bad thing, fine, that's your own opinion.

Yet again, though, your only single response appears "it's not a problem until it affects me". I don't even need to point out how laughably ignorant that is. Oh wait, I guess I just did.

I clearly understand the mathematics involved, yet you've not done a good job of explaining (or maybe I really am too ignorant to listen ) your point. We're all clear about what overselling is, your points as to why some hosts who oversell might not be the best to choose, etc. but to brand all overselling hosts (ie, the act of overselling itself) as bad... I can't fathom that at the moment.

Clearly you don't understand the mathematics involved at all, or you just choose to not see it as an issue. If you offer 'X' amount of space across 'Y' number of clients (resulting in a combined disk space offering of 'Z') and yet you don't have 'Z' amount of space available, please explain how this is NOT a bad thing? I can't break this down any simpler than that.

Are you going to claim that false advertising isn't the same as overselling again? Because it is, regardless of whether or not you accept that. And again we come full circle back to your single response of "it's not a problem until it affects me". This is how hosts can oversell and get away with it - because people like you expect it and practically condone it.

I'm well aware of Google offering different results based on varying factors, and that comparing apples to oranges never really adds up. That was my point, and one which I think we both agreed on even if it wasn't explicitly stated. That was merely an aside, an observation is all.

If you're aware that Google and Dreamhost are completely different, and that a search for "Google sucks" would yield significantly more results because of their greater range of products, what was the possible logic in posting the numbers? It made no sense, and didn't contribute anything to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Soskel I can't wait until the next article. if you're so against overselling hosts, then why work for them?

I don't work for any web host that oversells, conveniently.