That wouldn’t actually be quite enough, because then your fake HTML page would itself be an unlinked file. So you need to make fake HTML page #2, which has a link on it to fake page 1 (and of course, fake page 1 would also have a link to fake page 2, along with all of its other links).
Ah, a conundrum!
I got the impression from the tech that HTML files weren’t expected to be linked to each other (and a home web page might not be linked from anywhere except from OUTSIDE the domain). It was just non-HTML files that were of concern, maybe cause they are more likely to be large.
It’s unreasonable to use it for something else other than webhosting. I don’t get it - they’re being upfront about their rules, and essentially their rule is that they only want to work as a webhost, not as a way to transfer files or store data backups or whatever else. If they’re selling webhosting services, then they know that most people won’t use all the space they offer. But if customers use their service for something other than the product they sell, they’ll use more of it. So they prohibit you from using it for anything but the service they’re selling you - webhosting.
Honestly, this seems like going to a grocery store with free sample trays and using the free samples as hors d’oeuvres for a party. Sure, the store allows anyone into the store. And the samples are free. That doesn’t mean they want you and a crowd of your friends mingling around the ham-on-a-toothpick table. You’re using their service for a purpose other than intended, and taking much more of their resources than you otherwise would. Why wouldn’t they have a complaint?
In both cases, I think it’s important to note that the businesses are NOT being upfront about their intentions. Both operate using some degree of deception; it’s just that we’ve grown to accept them as socially permissible forms of deception.
When a grocery store offers samples, they want to seem like they’re just being nice, but of course, they’re doing it so you’ll buy the product if you like it, or more likely, so you’ll buy the product because they’ve guilt-tripped you into it. It’s a business model that’s designed to prey on the weak-willed, so really, they shouldn’t expect much decency in return. If they were actually upfront, they’d post signs saying “THE FIRST ONE’S ALWAYS FREE!”.
And with webhosting, “unlimited” is either misleading or an outright lie, depending on how they enforce the rules. Upfront would be “Get shared hosting with 50 other customers for only $10 a month! Disk space and bandwidth will vary depending on customer usage, our mood, and planetary alignment.”
Can’t really blame people for taking advantage of those situations. The merchants put themselves in those positions in their attempts to exploit unwary customers.
That’s not to say reasonable compromisescan’t be reached, but both parties do have to know what they’re getting themselves into beforehand.
Why? I’m paying for 50GB storage, why can’t I use it for storage? Does backup storage put any greater load on their computers or disk drives?
You mean if I pay for 50GB of storage, they don’t expect me to use what I paid for?
And what is the difference between data storage for backup and for web serving? Does the disk drive care? You mean if I pay for 50GB of storage and 50GB/month of bandwidth, they don’t expect me to use what I paid for?
What free samples? I’m paying for every byte! You mean if I pay for 50GB of storage and 50GB/month of bandwidth, I should expect to get less? I know a 2x4 isn’t exactly 2x4 inches, but this is ridiculous.
Although my original OP quote of the rules mentions unlimited storage, that was not my original question. I think the confusion is between plans that allow unlimited storage, where I agree they may have to have some rules, and limited storage, which should have no limitations other than the aggregate data size. Their rules and the one tech I talked to seem to not make this very important distinction.
I read ya. That sounds like a reasonable explanation. I was replying more to Excalibre’s post 
I just talked to a tech at hostexcellence.com, explained the situation as clearly and carefully as I could, and asked about their policy for unlinked files for accounts with fixed sizes of paid-for storage, as opposed to unlimited accounts.
She said their policy was the same for both, and they will not permit storage of unlinked files. However, she said I probably wouldn’t get in trouble for a small percentage of unlinked files or orphaned ones; they were specifically targeting users who store music or video files on their web site, even if they are paying for it and not exceeding the maximums. Again, the mantra was “we are a web hosting service, not a data storage service.” She could not offer any better explanation.
So I guess my latest theory is NG and we’re back to the OP. Why would a data storage service (I’m sorry, the primary product of a webhosting service is storage and delivery no matter what you call it) prohibit data storage?
Just a thought – there are services that offer storage specifically for backup purposes. Do they prohibit files that ARE linked, saying, “we are a backup service, not a web hosting service”?
Because they can?
Seriously, I think we’ve been all over this as much as we can and we’ve wrung out about all the sense there is in it; they have set their policy based on (what they perceive, perhaps mistakenly, to be) terms that will keep your bandwidth and disk usage within (what they consider to be) reasonable limits; these reasonable limits may actually be somewhat more limited than the published maximums for your hosting plan.
I guess they just think that usage for data storage and backup is going to generate more server load, on average, than normal web content, and they decided that it would be easier just to ban it than it would be to work with it.
The precise nature of the banishment sounds like it might have arisen originally informally out of a loophole - i.e. some tech support guy saying “look, you’re not supposed to use your web space for unlinked files, OK, but if you create a HTML link index for them, I can’t actually tell you to delete them” - and maybe this later became established as the norm.
I dunno; perhaps you’re looking for a sane, rational explanation where there is none.
That really sounds ridiculous. What about abandoned and orphaned pages that aren’t linked to from other pages? What about backups of static HTML pages that you might keep when you make changes? What about image macro directories, where you have a folder full of “Pwn3D!!!1!!” and cartwheel girl “Look at me! I’m an attention whore!” images you might use in posts on other boards, but which aren’t linked from within your site? What about robots.txt?
I’lll also add “What about files in FTP directory space?”
A file on your computer listing all your stored files on the site as html links fulfills the contractual obligation. Your computer is on the internet, isn’t it? It is a private location on the internet, with HTML links to the files on the Webhosting Site.
You have complied.
Tris
Exactly my point. However, I think the degree of “abuse” is important to them. An entire domain of MP3 files with no HTML links that looks like a data dump = abuse. An entire domain of MP3 files linked from what looks like a typical web site = peachy keen.
I just accessed my site thru FTP for the first time since setup, and found dozens of such files and directories (CGI-BIN, IMAGES, PRIVATE, etc.) already installed by the hosting service by default. Most of these aren’t linked, either, and it would be stupid to do so, so obviously there is a lot of leeway.
I really don’t think it will be a problem for me, or for a few dozen orphaned files that might exist, but it’s the philosophy that puzzles me.
Then I consider it false advertising if they guarantee N GB of storage, but don’t allow me to use all of it.
Makes no sense. If I am paying for X server load, don’t I get to use what I am paying for? Besides, I can pretty much guarantee that if I dump a hard drive for a backup, it will get a lot LESS traffic than my very active web content does. My backup gets zero traffic from others, and none from me unless I need to recover something – even then, I am likely to download each file only once. Many of my web site files get thousands of downloads daily.
That’s a workaround, of course, even one suggested by the tech. But it doesn’t address the philosphy behind the policy. It even makes a mockery of the idea.
Either there is more ignorance behind this than meets the eye, or there is something that no one has yet hit upon.
This has been explained. They will allow you to use all of it. But they will only allow you to use it for a website.
I know this doesn’t answer your question, but it might help solve your problems: dump this web host and their crazy rules and switch to one that doesn’t have such rules. There are lots of them out there; I’ve never heard of such a thing. Or set up your own server and do whatever the hell you want with it. From the sounds of your questions and answers, you have more than enough computer knowledge to do so.
Did they give you an opportunity to read the Terms of Service or the User Agreement before you put your money down? If they did, you have no claim. There is no false advertising if they disclose the restrictions before you pay. If they didn’t (which I seriously doubt, as no legitimate business on the web that deals in the tech sector in any way would do so) then you have a case. Your understanding of what they SHOULD allow you to do doesn’t even enter into it. If you electronically ticked the “I Agree” checkbox and clicked enter, you’re bound to THEIR ToS and UA.
You have no claim, but you also have no obligation to put up with stupid rules. Get a new web host. They’re a dime a dozen. I like nearlyfreespeech.net.
Nearlyfreespeech.net charges $1/GB of data transfer. Since I need about 50GB/month, that would cost me 6 times what the other services charge, since I can get 100GB for $9/month.
I’m making no claim, I’m not suing anybody, and it seems that many services have the same rules. I just want to know if there is any logic behind their rules, since I can’t find any. Saying, “it’s their ball, they can make the rules” might justify them but it doesn’t explain them.
I don’t think it’s so much the amount of space you just sit there occupying that would be a problem, but emptying and refilling the space on a regular basis might be (something that backup and file transfer usage typically does more than web content).
Then I would suggest you are not the kind of file-transfer/backup customer that they’re frightened of - they might have composed it to prevent people using it to perform daily distribution of a large set of files - rewriting the entire disk space once daily, then reading it en bloc many times; you don’t do this yourself, obviously, but you happen to fall foul of the policy in semantic terms rather than practical ones.
I honestly think that’s all there is to it and that you’re now expecting a more coherent answer than is possible to exist.
And it probably is false advertising to say you can have X amount of disk space and X amount of bandwidth, and then to gripe if you peg the meter in both of these respects, but it’s a pretty common thing for ISPs to do.
I like how they will guarantee X GB of storage (say 5gb), and then have the nerve to say that you can only use it for “webhosting”. Well, if they’re going to use that definition… A typical webpage is about 2-20k, depending on the content. Do they honestly think you’re gonna fill 5gb up with 333,333 html web pages? It seems to me, that extra space is there for a reason. And I agree with the OP, it’s space you paid for and should be allowed to use up to the advertised limits. If you pay for 5gb of space, and a 100gb monthly bandwith transfer, you should be able to use 100% of that service. And if they say otherwise, it’s misleading. Just like I can max out my 1500 minutes of cell phone usage every month if I wanted to.