Free or cheap web forum hosting for a non-profit?

[groucho]

I've been asked to see what exists, in the way of free or cheap forum hosting for a non-profit group that want to put up a web forum where some 1500 members can discuss issues online. Preferably a US-based host, and if they support that by placing ads on the pages...well, someone has to pay the rent, so be it.

Anyone have suggestions?

[annc]

I've been asked to see what exists, in the way of free or cheap forum hosting for a non-profit group that want to put up a web forum where some 1500 members can discuss issues online. Preferably a US-based host, and if they support that by placing ads on the pages...well, someone has to pay the rent, so be it.

Anyone have suggestions?United Hosting (http://www.unitedhosting.com/) has a plan that costs USD 8.00 a month and they have a great reputation for uptime and technical support. I've been through the super cheap hosts and wouldn't go back to any of them, especially with a forum to maintain. Surely a not-for-profit organisation can afford that much.

[lurkalot]

There's a free one here, www.forumsplace.com (http://www.forumsplace.com/) Not sure if it's any good though. ;)

[groucho]

Thanks. I'd take a look--but right now they are down for maintenance.

[lurkalot]

Thanks. I'd take a look--but right now they are down for maintenance.

Oops, sorry I did check it was working before I posted the link. I found that one in my favourites. ;)

I use Hostgator for my site, and their packages start at around 4.95 USD for 350.000 MB (350 GB) of space, and Bandwidth of 3,000,000mb 3,000gb (only one domain allowed)

Or 7.95 USD for 600,000mb 600gb of space, and Bandwith 6,000,000mb 6,000gb. Unlimited domains, so you can build as many sites as you like. They also give you Cpanel so you can easily install your forum software etc. http://www.hostgator.com/shared.shtml

[don Arnoldy]

I've been asked to see what exists, in the way of free or cheap forum hosting for a non-profit group that want to put up a web forum where some 1500 members can discuss issues online.What's the limit on "cheap"? There are lots of decent hosts in the $100 - 150/year range. vBulletin software will cost another $180/one-time + $40/yr for updates.

[ktinkel]

I've been asked to see what exists, in the way of free or cheap forum hosting for a non-profit group that want to put up a web forum where some 1500 members can discuss issues online. Preferably a US-based host, and if they support that by placing ads on the pages...well, someone has to pay the rent, so be it.

Anyone have suggestions?How important is it that it be reliable (few outages, none prolonged)?

Who is going to manage the site? A competent web master can make do with fewer bells and whistles (no control panel, for example). A novice will need more support.

Price ranges often reflect the extent to which the hosting service oversells its space. There are other factors to consider, but in my experience a host that is very oversold will make for unreliable sites no matter how capable the management or how civilized it is in other aspects.

Read some threads here about hosts, including these (some of them prompted by me as we were searching for a new host last spring — lots of information in these threads, however):

Considering Dreamhost? Maybe you should think again (http://www.desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/showthread.php?t=5810&highlight=hosting)
Interesting hosting advice site (http://www.desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/showthread.php?t=5369&highlight=hosting)
Evaluating potential web hosts (http://www.desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/showthread.php?t=5209&highlight=hosting)

Check out the Terms of Service; some are draconian. Make sure the hosting service supports the tools you need, including a control panel (which? what version?); PHP; MySQL, both with version; e-mail, with client and version; and so on.

To find out about any host you are considering, check out its user forums. And run web searches on xyz-host.com and “problem” to see if anything sticks up consistently and recently. There are site review sites all over the web; many are basically advertising services, but a few can be useful:

Web Hosting Direct (http://webhostdir.com/)
Web Hosting Reviews (http://whreviews.com/)
Reseller Hosting Guide (http://www.resellerguide.com/): Focuses on reseller hosting, but many of the articles, on how evaluate a host, especially, are generally useful.

Ask questions here. We have some very knowledgeable and helpful members — including some with nonprofit and political sites — who can help you sort things out. Web hosting has changed a lot over the years, and it is ever more puzzling!

[Kelvyn]

I would set up phpBB (http://www.phpbb.com/) (free) on United Hosting (http://www.unitedhosting.com) (excellent service). Maybe run Google ads to generate some income to offset/cover the hosting cost?

[groucho]

Don, right now the group is first working on 501-c-3 status and then fund raising, so cheap means "let's all shake out our pockets" for now and they'd love to find a free (i.e. ad-supported) model.

[groucho]

KT-
"How important is it that it be reliable (few outages, none prolonged)?"
A couple of retries here and there, or a late night down for maintenance, no problem. Longer periods and day/evening unavailability, forget it.

"Who is going to manage the site? " Probably me. They don't want frills, just one step more than a web group, i.e. so that different sections can be used to organize different topical areas. Fancy avatars, pms, etc. would all be frills.

"(some of them prompted by me as we were searching for a new host last spring "
Yes, I remember, that's one reason I asked here.

"Make sure the hosting service supports the tools you need, including a control panel (which? what version?); PHP; MySQL, both with version; e-mail, with client and version; and so on.

"Web hosting has changed a lot over the years, and it is ever more puzzling!"
Nah, that's just the devil at work. Anything that used to take on phone call to fix, now takes four phones calls. One, to be told you can't speak to that person now. A second, to speak to the wrong person who can't replace the right person. A third, to finally get to the right person. And then a fourth, to ask the right person why they did exactly the opposite of what you asked them to do.

Sigh. I swear, I'm going to start taking telephones and nailing them HIGH UP ON THE WALL so they are out of reach of the kids and the mentally challenged.

Thanks for the hints, plenty to read this weekend.

[Andrew B.]

Yahoo Groups.

[groucho]

AFAIK the Yahoo groups provide no web forums, they only provide group email, aka "reflectors". There is no way to set up different topical sections or the other features that differentiate a web forum from an email list.

And, Yahoo apparently changed their hosting options. It is no longer possible to post a message on a Yahoo group without having our email address disclosed along with it---which has lead to massive spam poisoning of email accounts. Especially now that Grouply is being let loose.

[Andrew B.]

Good points. Do they need to also put up HTML pages, or just a forum?

[Michael Rowley]

Groucho:

It is no longer possible to post a message on a Yahoo group without having our email address disclosed along with itIs that any different from what Google Groups or MSN Groups do? I thought that was normal.

[iamback]

Groucho:

Is that any different from what Google Groups or MSN Groups do? I thought that was normal.Even if they do it it's not "normal". Revealing people's email addresses is simply "not done" in these days where mail servers are choked with spam and ISPs are forced to provide ever more sophisticated anti-spam measures if only to protect their own networks.

BTW, I have no experience with MSN Groups (did not even know such a thing existed), but as far as I know, Google groups obfuscates emails. And of course a large percentage of Google groups is nothing but an echo of newsgroups, where people make their own choice whether or not to reveal a real email address or not.

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

as far as I know, Google groups obfuscates emailsIt doesn't: I've just looked at a message; I (and the other members of the Google group) received the member's message en clair. There's no reason why the sender's address should be 'obfuscated', as the message only goes to members, whose fellow-members are listed. Of course, some may choose pseudonyms, but that seems daft if they sign their messages with their true names.

[terrie]

groucho: And, Yahoo apparently changed their hosting options. It is no longer possible to post a message on a Yahoo group without having our email address disclosed along with itIf one reads group posts at groups.yahoo.com, email addresses are not fully displayed.

If a user opts for either individual emails or the digest option (via email), then email addresses are fully displayed.

A group can can be set as private so that posts are only visible to members (online) and a group can be set so that it can only be received via individual emails or in (email) digest form.

The list owner can set posting rules such that each email is moderated (by the owner) before being released to the list...

Hope that helps...

Terrie

[groucho]

Terrie-

"If one reads group posts at groups.yahoo.com, email addresses are not fully displayed. ...If a user opts for either individual emails or the digest option (via email), then email addresses are fully displayed."

Meaning, that the email addresses are "always" there in full display, if the person viewing the messages chooses to view them that way.

It is my understanding that this was NOT the original norm on Yahoo, that up until a year or so ago, the moderators had an option to obscure the domains ALL THE TIME, IN ALL VIEWS, in order to preserve privacy.

"A group can can be set as private so that " Yeah, but again, that's not perfect. People can and do sneak into private groups, and naive users subscribe to Grouply which then reposts the entire private group to the world. Forcing users to digest view is also kind of a crude hack--it now means any "conversation" becomes two or three days long just to post one question and get one reply.

"The list owner can set posting rules such that each email is moderated (by the owner) before being released to the list..."
Sure, if you've got the time. But moderation is not the issue here, privacy versus disclosure is. I've seen enough email accounts used "only" in "secure" Yahoo groups become poisoned from spam, to know that if the account CAN BE SEEN, it WILL BE POISONED. Either by mods selling their lists, or clever folks joining and collecting them, or....It doesn't matter. If folks have to display an email address--then it either has to be whitelisted, or thrown out every few months.

[terrie]

groucho: It is my understanding that this was NOT the original norm on Yahoo, that up until a year or so ago, the moderators had an option to obscure the domains ALL THE TIME, IN ALL VIEWS, in order to preserve privacy.That could very well be true but there was one list I subscribed to that was *extremely* paranoid (with some reason) and if this had been an option, I'm sure the list owner would have done it. This list was only available via individual email or digest--no access via Yahoo's Groups website. So I don't know 1) if this option has really been available and 2) I haven't seen any changes...


>>Sure, if you've got the time. But moderation is not the issue here, privacy versus disclosure is. I've seen enough email accounts used "only" in "secure" Yahoo groups become poisoned from spam, to know that if the account CAN BE SEEN, it WILL BE POISONED. Either by mods selling their lists, or clever folks joining and collecting them, or....It doesn't matter. If folks have to display an email address--then it either has to be whitelisted, or thrown out every few months.

Yes, mods can sell lists but if I had joined a group where that wasn't disclosed up-front and later found it to be happening, I would leave the group and I would imagine the group wouldn't last very long or be useful at all. As to people joining a list to harvest addresses, this certainly does happen but that's one reason for vetting users to at least attempt to stop that sort of crap and it's not always successful...

Nothin's poifect...'-}}

Terrie

[Andrew B.]

I forgot to mention. A Small Orange has a Tiny account for $25 a year. I had a low traffic forum there for awhile. Then people started joining who never posted and my bandwidth use jumped. They must have been exploiting something.

Also, one thing to keep in mind. A 99.5% server uptime guarantee means the server can be down for 3.7 hours a month.

[annc]

I forgot to mention. A Small Orange has a Tiny account for $25 a year. I had a low traffic forum there for awhile. Then people started joining who never posted and my bandwidth use jumped. They must have been exploiting something.

Also, one thing to keep in mind. A 99.5% server uptime guarantee means the server can be down for 3.7 hours a month.Some of us here using UH are refugees from ASO.

[Andrew B.]

Some of us here using UH are refugees from ASO.I was happy to see us leave ASO. But I still have an account there because it is very low use and does not need great performance. And I should have mentioned this in my other message.

[dthomsen8]

KT-
"How important is it that it be reliable (few outages, none prolonged)?"
A couple of retries here and there, or a late night down for maintenance, no problem. Longer periods and day/evening unavailability, forget it.

"Who is going to manage the site? " Probably me. They don't want frills, just one step more than a web group, i.e. so that different sections can be used to organize different topical areas. Fancy avatars, pms, etc. would all be frills.

"(some of them prompted by me as we were searching for a new host last spring "
Yes, I remember, that's one reason I asked here.

"Make sure the hosting service supports the tools you need, including a control panel (which? what version?); PHP; MySQL, both with version; e-mail, with client and version; and so on.

"Web hosting has changed a lot over the years, and it is ever more puzzling!"
Nah, that's just the devil at work. Anything that used to take on phone call to fix, now takes four phones calls. One, to be told you can't speak to that person now. A second, to speak to the wrong person who can't replace the right person. A third, to finally get to the right person. And then a fourth, to ask the right person why they did exactly the opposite of what you asked them to do.

Sigh. I swear, I'm going to start taking telephones and nailing them HIGH UP ON THE WALL so they are out of reach of the kids and the mentally challenged.

Thanks for the hints, plenty to read this weekend.Groucho, think hard about your time versus their expenses. If you have a hosting company that you like because you are already using it and know about their support and policies, use that. Your time may be free to this group, but it isn't free to you.

I have been in this situation, and I much prefer to avoid the learning curve at a new web hosting company. Thinking about this now is not being selfish, it is being prudent about the future, when the site grows with the group, and you have more and more work to do.

Maybe I don't know enough about the situation, or your degree of commitment to their objectives, for this to be the right approach, but maybe the voice of experience can avoid future problems.

[ktinkel]

I forgot to mention. A Small Orange has a Tiny account for $25 a year. I had a low traffic forum there for awhile. Then people started joining who never posted and my bandwidth use jumped. They must have been exploiting something.

Also, one thing to keep in mind. A 99.5% server uptime guarantee means the server can be down for 3.7 hours a month.I also have a Tiny account there (mainly because I forgot to close it before it auto-renewed and have been distracted since). I have a monitor on it, however, and between September 29 and October 24 (a bit less than a month), the site has been down approximately 32 hours (the monitor checks every 10 minutes, so there can be errors in either direction). Outages vary from 2 to 7 hours in a day (one day was more than 7 hours; three were about 5 hours).

That was similar to the pattern for DTP toward the end of our time there. ASO appears to be heavily oversold. If is better than other crowded hosting services, in my view (assuming you are not running a critical site that people depend on) because the staff is fairly responsive. But the price does not allow the company to offer high reliability.

[iamback]

It doesn't: I've just looked at a message; I (and the other members of the Google group) received the member's message en clair.Hmm - I'm quite sure I've seen groups with obfuscated addresses - maybe it depends on the group (and where it lives, newsnet or Google groups only).

There's no reason why the sender's address should be 'obfuscated', as the message only goes to members, whose fellow-members are listed. Of course, some may choose pseudonyms, but that seems daft if they sign their messages with their true names.That's naive, sorry. Who can become a member? Are candidate members vetted? What prevents a would-be email marketer from signing up as a member, to harvest a ready-made list of email addresses with known interest(s) of their owners?

And of course not all groups are "closed" in that all messages go only to members (certainly not if it's actually a newsgroup).

I never reveal my email address in forums or newsgroups. I would not even consider doing that for a minute fraction of a millisecond.

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

That's naive, sorry. Who can become a member? Are candidate members vetted? What prevents a would-be email marketer from signing up as a member, to harvest a ready-made list of email addresses with known interest(s) of their owners?Most groups are private, and have nothing to do with newsgroups: theyr'e for 'members' only, where members can be members of learned societies, members of a professional association, or a club. And if one's e-mail address were all that secret, all the messages one would get would be spam (or advertisements).

[iamback]

Most groups are private, and have nothing to do with newsgroups: theyr'e for 'members' onlyMost? Where do you get that statistic from?

Google groups started as a continuation of DejaNews which was nothing but a (searchable) web interface to newsnet. While I know there are Google-only "groups" as well now, I'd be curious to know where "most" comes from when applied to "private" groups.

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

Where do you get that statistic from?Out of the air, where many statistics come from! Obviously, I can't say how many private groups there are, because they are . . . private; but there are about 30 000 Google groups that appear to be public, i.e. are listed, but that may include private groups. But my professional association has at least twenty groups (though they're largely Yahoo groups), and it's a pretty small association—less than 3000 members—, so I'd estimate that worldwide the number of private groups exceeds 30 000 by far.

[iamback]

Out of the air, where many statistics come from! Obviously, I can't say how many private groups there are, because they are . . . private; but there are about 30 000 Google groups that appear to be public, i.e. are listed, but that may include private groups. But my professional association has at least twenty groups (though they're largely Yahoo groups), and it's a pretty small association—less than 3000 members—, so I'd estimate that worldwide the number of private groups exceeds 30 000 by far.That, of course, assumes that your organization is typical for organizations world-wide in their use of "private groups". What if it's unique, instead?

I consider your estimate a brilliant example of "How to lie with statistics". :twisted:

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

I consider your estimate a brilliant example of "How to lie with statistics"You probably, almost certainly, have never read How to Lie with Statistics, for if you had, it's not about using false figures.

[iamback]

You probably, almost certainly, have never read How to Lie with Statistics, for if you had, it's not about using false figures.I have not only read it, I own it. It's one of my all-time favorite books, in fact.

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

I have not only read it, I own it. It's one of my all-time favorite books, in fact.I had no idea that the book, published by Gollanz in 1954, was still available; I thought at first you had been visiting the second-hand bookshops.

Well, if you have read the book (and understood it), you should know that its title is deceptive: the book describes how figures, in themselves true, are frequently presented so as to give a distorted impression, either deliberately or accidentally. It is not about made up data.

[iamback]

I had no idea that the book, published by Gollanz in 1954, was still available; I thought at first you had been visiting the second-hand bookshops.

Well, if you have read the book (and understood it), you should know that its title is deceptive: the book describes how figures, in themselves true, are frequently presented so as to give a distorted impression, either deliberately or accidentally. It is not about made up data.The title is not deceptive at all: it's the distorted impression that counts, and in practice that's created far more often deliberately than accidentally. Whenever it's deliberate, it's a lie.

Your example of one (1) single smallish association with a comparatively large number of private groups, compared to 30,000 known (and presumably public) groups as a basis for assuming far more private groups exist than those 30,000 fits the pattern - whether deliberately or accidentally I cannot tell (tit does not matter).

Sample size (1!), representativeness, outliers... the assumption is a total non-sequitur, but as written down it sounds quite plausible to those not schooled in statistics. Hence my remark. :twisted:

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

it sounds quite plausible to those not schooled in statisticsWell, if you say so, it must be a fallacy.