Originally Posted by nabeez
Thanks for this insight. I don't know if you noticed that BlueHost and HostPapa are marked explicitly as sponsored? and their score is not Excellent?
As for Siteground their score is Excellent because they deserve it. I have been hosting four Prestashop websites with them for four years now ... thier servers are very fast, uptime is 99.99% and the support go with you the extra mile to solve your problems.
I'm also wondering if you took a look the rest of the list ... HawkHost scored 93% Excellent, and a lot of hosts that don't pay commission at all.
I did notice the top 3 were sponsored, but you know as well as I do that the top 3 positions get the most clicks and would generate the most revenue. Hence, the top 3 positions in Google are sponsored then they start giving organic results.
So siteground.com is top because they deserve to be or because they are sponsored?
If HawkHost scored better than BlueHost and HostPapa, then why not place them in the top 3 instead (sponsored or not)?
Also, read reviews about HawkHost and SiteGround and the only negative mark that HawkHost received was for control panel - they use the industry standard cpanel (just like siteground)? I have to wonder if they got that negative purposely just to keep them from page one since they pay so little?
FYI - not on a HawkHost kick, just using them as an example and not using my own company to keep discussion more honest on my end.