Change "website" To "account" Or "container": Page 2 - Enhance Control Panel

Change "website" To "account" Or "container"

wbknght

To people who says AINT NOBODY TIME FOR THAT like me,

ChatGPT summarized the first entry:

The individual is frustrated with Enhance's use of the term "website" to describe what should be an "account" hosting multiple sites. This confusion is hindering the product's adoption, as users find the terminology misleading and question the company's overall competence. The individual suggests changing the term to improve clarity and aid in wider adoption.

JohnB

wbknght ChatGPT always tries to word things so positively. I "encouraged" it to take a different approach:

These critics are simply griping about terminology and misunderstood pricing, showcasing a hostile attitude instead of offering any substantial criticism. Their stubborn resistance to change and penchant for dramatic overreactions might be the reason they're overlooking a service that could actually benefit them.

8Dweb

JohnB LOL

josedieguez

for many is confusing, for clients too.

8Dweb

Perhaps a compromise would be to allow the hosting company to set the terminology utilized, similar to language files...

twest

8Dweb that's actually the best idea lol

manu

Had brought this up already https://community.enhance.com/d/758-ability-to-rename-websites with no action on this :-( My vote is for the word “container” which is the actual thing.

MediaLabz

manu Maybe @Adam will let us put it to a vote?

Adam

The difficulty with a software product which is used by potentially millions of end users is that it's impossibly to please everyone.

Yes Enhance does support addon domains and that does mean you can have multiple "websites" under a single Website in Enhance. This functionality exists for 2 reasons; to support migrations from Plesk/cPanel and for customers running on tight margins who do not want to pay the per-website licence cost. However, we don't want to encourage this as the use of addon domains means that you lose the benefit of each website having its own container. The recommended setup is that each website is created as a separate Website.

Also bear in mind that, whilst this is obviously a predominantly English speaking forum, a large percentage of Enhance customers use the panel in languages other than English. Website has a literal translation in every language.

We are considering if there is a way we can enable specific translation IDs to be overridden by you (the hosting provider). Then you can use any terminology you like.

JohnB

Adam We are considering if there is a way we can enable specific translation IDs to be overridden by you (the hosting provider). Then you can use any terminology you like.

I think this is the best approach and not just for this specific issue. If we can override translations it gives a lot of flexibility ie "Delete" vs "Remove", warning messages etc.

MediaServe

I guess this is somewhat related. I began to start a new discussion but then realized I should post in this one.

I had long term client hosted on cPanel order two separate small hosting plans provisioned on the same order and on Enhance. I haven't asked the client about this yet, but unless the end users are separate orgs (probably are but IDK yet) it would have been better (IMO) to order a medium plan with two containers which provides more resources then two small plans with each having one container.

I've pretty much decided to completely rework our hosting to nix addon domains and use containers as the only website mechanism. Alias and sub-domains only, as trying to clearly document containers vs. addon domains seems beyond most of our clients. (I'm actually befuddled how many of our clients struggle with much simpler tasks than these.)

Other related puzzles that float through my brain.

Suppose a client upgrades from the smallest plan (single container) to the next larger (2 containers) and if said client has two websites within a single container, shouldn't it be simple to move one to the next container easily? I don't think that's possible, but I hope it's planned for the future.

Or what if a client wishes to merge two containers into one so he can free up a container for a new website without increased cost? Again not possible right now.

Removing any possibility of using addon domains seems the easiest solution. I get how migrating from cPanel/Plesk makes sense, but I'm just now beginning to realize some of the difficulties of our plan structure (guess I can be my own form of dunce myself!)

But at the end of it, it's common to offer a single panel account with more websites per storage/bandwidth/cpu cores/ram and what not, so I don't exactly know what to do. If I have a client with the largest Enhance package without addon domains, and uses all the available containers, he then has a confusing question. Does he then start a separate small plan for the new website? Or would it make sense to have an array of single container plans with varying resources? The contention between containers vs. resources seems very real and I don't know what the solution is.

Perhaps if the WHMCS module supported configurable options for extra containers and resources that might be useful, but a quick review of the code doesn't seem it's available yet. I'm decent with PHP code but don't have time for it.

I guess I'll be left with just removing the addon domain support in our plans for now, and if a client needs more websites than the later plan provides he'd just need to order a new plan.

twest

MediaServe I considered doing that, but, it would go against most of my business strategy up to this point. Selling single-domain packages is more of a high-end premium service, and while most of my clients want high-end services they also don't want to be so restricted in how they use their resources (or else they might be hosted at one of my competitors that does single-domain hosting). A lot of times they just want to throw a new site on their existing plan without having to think about it - so we do it. Going to a "1 plan = 1 website" strategy would require reworking my entire business strategy - not worth it.

Suppose a client upgrades from the smallest plan (single container) to the next larger (2 containers) and if said client has two websites within a single container, shouldn't it be simple to move one to the next container easily? I don't think that's possible, but I hope it's planned for the future.

Yes this has been talked about a few times already, Enhance knows it's something we need, though not sure how much priority there is on automating that. For me, I already had that situation come up - I just zipped the addon domain's files and dumped the DB, moved those files to the parent directory, deleted the addon domain, added the addon domain to the new package/container, moved the zip/db to the new package/container, unzipped files and imported the db. It was like 4 minutes downtime, not a big deal. An automated solution for that would be nice though.

But at the end of it, it's common to offer a single panel account with more websites per storage/bandwidth/cpu cores/ram and what not, so I don't exactly know what to do. If I have a client with the largest Enhance package without addon domains, and uses all the available containers, he then has a confusing question. Does he then start a separate small plan for the new website? Or would it make sense to have an array of single container plans with varying resources? The contention between containers vs. resources seems very real and I don't know what the solution is.

For me, I'm just not dealing with that confusion. I set all packages to 1 single website so it functions just like a traditional "account", then people can add all the addon domains they want to it, or whatever.

One of the things about changing things up too much in this regard, is giving my customers a reason to check out competitors. If they have to buy another package to plop their new domain, they might want to shop around to see if there's another cheaper option, maybe they find a place that has comparable services and decide to move their whole operation...

MediaServe

twest Good points. If I restructure our plans our existing clients will inherit their cPanel-like plans, but I may have to increase the container count and forego the addon domains on new plans to reduce confusion. Somewhere in between should be fine for new clients. Our resource levels are way too generous anyway. I'll try to find a balance between containers vs. addon domains.

Freezia

I think to keep things very simple -- we are considering removing the ability for addon domains. Just have websites so they are as containers and support subdomains and aliases as required. This way we can migrate customers as required and easily.

twest

Freezia are you going to adjust pricing to compensate? The addon domains share resources with the "website" they're under - but if you remove addons and just include many "websites" per package, each "website" gets its own dedicated resources. In that scenario most businesses would then need to raise their pricing to reflect that, as you run the risk of quickly overselling a server resulting in performance/stability issues.

MediaServe

twest I've done similar. I'm not really worried about the cPanel migrated accounts as they'll be a single container with addon domains and all roles on a single server, but going forward after thinking and reading the above discussion, I felt removing addon domains and using more containers was the smart move, and the current plans are distributed.

Didn't have to increase the pricing, but did not offer as many addon domains as containers in the plans FWIW.

IMO the difference between containers and addon domains is more of a throwback to support migration from other panels who offer addon domains to support clients with multiple websites to add value/price point. Probably never was a wise thing but it is what it is nowadays. We're guilty of it too with cPanel.

Freezia

twest Yeah, pricing would reflect this change. It would run alongside our current cPanel product line to see how well-adopted this project would be -- I do like the idea of quick migrations though in case we do over-grow capacity.

kess

As far as i can read is just a terminology "problem", if I can tell something too, I'll vote for tenant or subscription

twest

kess I liked Adam's suggestion that we'll be able to adjust the language files to rename it to whatever we want in the future, fix it so we can all have exactly what we need for our various businesses. Hopefully that comes soon 😃

psybox

What do you guys feel about moving everyone to a reseller account? I see many people selling traditional reseller accounts with 5 websites for example. Maybe traditional hosting accounts could become the same? Ie a website package that allows you to have 2 websites, but is actually a tiny reseller. As I type I think I’m talking nonsense but I’m going to ask the question anyway 😂

JohnB

psybox Ie a website package that allows you to have 2 websites, but is actually a tiny reseller

You can make a package for customers with a 2 website limit. They are isolated from each other unlike cpanel.

I see many people selling traditional reseller accounts with 5 websites for example.

Where? If its cpanel its because cpanel doesn't isolate websites under the same account. However with the reseller feature each one is isolated.

but is actually a tiny reseller.

Not sure what good this would be for enhance when each site is isolated already. If you mean for actual reseller use... The only "resellers" it would attract, in my opinion, are cheap people who shouldn't even have an admin login. I'd pay to NOT have this customer lol.

« Previous Page