12 months free hosting and free domain name
689°Expired

12 months free hosting and free domain name

66
Posted 16th Dec 2017
Get 12 months free hosting and a domain name.
All top level domains included.

No credit card or payment details needed, renewal after the 12 months is up is not to bad at around £38 a year depending on your domain you chose. This is a good deal for people looking to test websites etc
Community Updates

Groups

66 Comments
hollger39 m ago

Maybe not, but there's a lot involved with Let's Encrypt (including to …Maybe not, but there's a lot involved with Let's Encrypt (including to remember to renew them) compared to even a $20 one from Comodo. I doubt free hosts will have the automatic process in place to sort the renewals so there's more work to put in. I would not suggest Let's Encrypt (at present) for anyone without a thorough understanding of SSL and HTTP technologies in general.


You can’t even use the $20 Comodo one either though, they only allow you to use ones bought through them. That’s either £33 per domain per year or £139 for unlimited domains. Again if people aren’t willing to pay for hosting and a domain they aren’t going to pay for SSL
was going to signup but after seeing the posts above i probably wont. i'm looking to test a few cms sites myself, whats the lowest cost alternative, other than aws free or lightsail?
Thanks, seems a good thing to try something out.
simonwakefield117/12/2017 05:26

Nah Google has increasingly been blocking sites for being malicious due to …Nah Google has increasingly been blocking sites for being malicious due to login details not being sent via an ssl connection. So without letencryot you are walking a tightrope of being blocked (which is a pain to get unblocked even if you then buy an ssl cert)


Nah, Google as a search engine have never blocked a site for being malicious due to not having valid SSL. Warnings and messages that appear in your browser are a feature set of your browser and can be set to your own preference. LetsEncript, tightrope, blocked, unblocked is all nonsense. Where did you get this information from?

For the vast majority of people signing up to random companies in order to get a free domain name, the need for any SSL at all is going to be pretty remote. For anything other than live eCommerce and membership based sites, you won't notice any difference at all. The vast majority of small business websites are still non SSL and have no problems at all. On a deal for a free domain name from a company offering poorly rated hosting, talk of SSL certs is a bit out of scope.

Actually, even today, you can run a eCommerce store (turning over more than 1 million) and have it run perfectly without any SSL cert at all, and without being blocked or seeing any warning messages at all. That's a fact. I don't recommend it, but there you go. All the scaremongering around SSL is very silly.
I'm afraid Google disagree with you and they are the people that count together with the browser suppliers. Google don't block - they merely reduce your ranking which is little different if you are looking to be found. The browser companies are increasingly putting up red warnings if they see an unencrypted login page. As they should as sending your credentials in plain text not only puts you at risk but impacts everybody else sharing your platform if and when you get hit by a hacker with the double whammy of having to clean the site and having your IP blocked.

Letsencrypt sorts that and the other post suggesting you have to remember to renew is nonsense if you use letsencrypt own certbot and a decent CP. It just automatically happens every 60 days in the background
Holy shit...... most complex thread I have ever read !!!!!!! lol
decanay17/12/2017 17:38

Nah, Google as a search engine have never blocked a site for being …Nah, Google as a search engine have never blocked a site for being malicious due to not having valid SSL. Warnings and messages that appear in your browser are a feature set of your browser and can be set to your own preference. LetsEncript, tightrope, blocked, unblocked is all nonsense. Where did you get this information from?For the vast majority of people signing up to random companies in order to get a free domain name, the need for any SSL at all is going to be pretty remote. For anything other than live eCommerce and membership based sites, you won't notice any difference at all. The vast majority of small business websites are still non SSL and have no problems at all. On a deal for a free domain name from a company offering poorly rated hosting, talk of SSL certs is a bit out of scope.Actually, even today, you can run a eCommerce store (turning over more than 1 million) and have it run perfectly without any SSL cert at all, and without being blocked or seeing any warning messages at all. That's a fact. I don't recommend it, but there you go. All the scaremongering around SSL is very silly.



I get my information from Google themselves. I've had a few clients have their perfectly clean and legit sites given the malicious warnings which google confirmed was caused by what they consider sensitive data (ie login details) being sent over an insecure connection. Sites that had an appeal rejected when a false positive was reported but upon installing an SSL cert and requesting it again saw it unblocked.
downvoted, sorry, not really free as they lock you in with a renewal fee at the end.
brainsys17/12/2017 18:11

I'm afraid Google disagree with you and they are the people that count …I'm afraid Google disagree with you and they are the people that count together with the browser suppliers. Google don't block - they merely reduce your ranking which is little different if you are looking to be found. The browser companies are increasingly putting up red warnings if they see an unencrypted login page. As they should as sending your credentials in plain text not only puts you at risk but impacts everybody else sharing your platform if and when you get hit by a hacker with the double whammy of having to clean the site and having your IP blocked.Letsencrypt sorts that and the other post suggesting you have to remember to renew is nonsense if you use letsencrypt own certbot and a decent CP. It just automatically happens every 60 days in the background


What Google says and what Google does are two very different things, and they've never said half of what you're implying in explicit terms. Real World experience is all that matters, and in the real World, Google do not reduce your rankings... yet. Many non SSL sites outrank their SSL competition all over the SERPS.

I'm not disagreeing that SSL is the way to go, but most sites don't require it to function perfectly well, and with none of the negative points mentioned in these comments being of any concern at all.

simonwakefield117/12/2017 22:36

I get my information from Google themselves. I've had a few clients have …I get my information from Google themselves. I've had a few clients have their perfectly clean and legit sites given the malicious warnings which google confirmed was caused by what they consider sensitive data (ie login details) being sent over an insecure connection. Sites that had an appeal rejected when a false positive was reported but upon installing an SSL cert and requesting it again saw it unblocked.



Yeah, but that's not "blocking sites" though is it. I have only seen that happen once something has entered a manual review process. Something else must have got it into that situation in the first place.

PS. If you're desperate for it, most hosts, even crappy ones will have the option of using a shared SSL cert, whether they advertise it or not. Fairly sure that is going to be the case here, so all SSL points are moot anyway
decanay17/12/2017 23:48

What Google says and what Google does are two very different things, and …What Google says and what Google does are two very different things, and they've never said half of what you're implying in explicit terms. Real World experience is all that matters, and in the real World, Google do not reduce your rankings... yet. Many non SSL sites outrank their SSL competition all over the SERPS.I'm not disagreeing that SSL is the way to go, but most sites don't require it to function perfectly well, and with none of the negative points mentioned in these comments being of any concern at all.Yeah, but that's not "blocking sites" though is it. I have only seen that happen once something has entered a manual review process. Something else must have got it into that situation in the first place. PS. If you're desperate for it, most hosts, even crappy ones will have the option of using a shared SSL cert, whether they advertise it or not. Fairly sure that is going to be the case here, so all SSL points are moot anyway


When you have to click a small link at the bottom of the page, get more warnings when you do and then click a further link to get on the site then its basically blocking it. Even more so when it keeps poping up. 99.9% of visitors see the warning page and click away.

As for the shared SSL reading the spec that only works on the hosting provided url not the domain
speculatrix1 h, 50 m ago

downvoted, sorry, not really free as they lock you in with a renewal fee …downvoted, sorry, not really free as they lock you in with a renewal fee at the end.


It is free for the first year, after that its upto you if you decide to stay on with them or not.. This is more for short term.. Testing etc.. You are actually getting a domain and free hosting for a year.. Renewal is optional 🤔
simonwakefield132 m ago

When you have to click a small link at the bottom of the page, get more …When you have to click a small link at the bottom of the page, get more warnings when you do and then click a further link to get on the site then its basically blocking it. Even more so when it keeps poping up. 99.9% of visitors see the warning page and click away. As for the shared SSL reading the spec that only works on the hosting provided url not the domain


If you know what you're doing / looking at you will never receive any such warning on your site (even an eCommerce site like I mentioned earlier) without a cert. The fact is, many sites don't use SSL and don't have any of these messages popping up at all.

Again, you need to know what you're doing with a shared SSL, and there's nothing stopping you running a website on your domain and using the shared SSL to secure any sensitive data submissions.

And if shared isn't for you, pick another method. Do you have anything against Cloudflare as a free SSL alternative for this particular scenario?
Edited by: "decanay" 18th Dec 2017
decanay17/12/2017 23:48

but most sites don't require it to function perfectly well, and with none …but most sites don't require it to function perfectly well, and with none of the negative points mentioned in these comments being of any concern at all.


Well if you think sending passwords in plain text across public networks is 'no concern' then I'm afraid you are a serious threat to the internet and whose advice should be disregarded.

Unbelievable comment in 2017/8.
brainsys18/12/2017 02:10

Well if you think sending passwords in plain text across public networks …Well if you think sending passwords in plain text across public networks is 'no concern' then I'm afraid you are a serious threat to the internet and whose advice should be disregarded.Unbelievable comment in 2017/8.


Now you've gone from misrepresenting Google guidelines, to misrepresenting my comments. What I said is 'most sites' don't require it, and funnily enough 'most sites' don't require sending passwords either.

Not only have I said I agree with the use of SSL in general, I have offered multiple potential SSL options for anyone that takes up this deal if they really think they need it. What have you done beyond trolling this deal and spouting nonsense?
decanay18/12/2017 03:12

Now you've gone from misrepresenting Google guidelines, to misrepresenting …Now you've gone from misrepresenting Google guidelines, to misrepresenting my comments. What I said is 'most sites' don't require it, and funnily enough 'most sites' don't require sending passwords either.


Mis-representing Google? Well everybody can read what they say in their own words and make a judgement on your comments. Here is what they said in 2014. They have turned up the wick since:
webmasters.googleblog.com/201…tml

That is exactly what I said. It effects all websites. That doesn't, if you understand the basics of Google's ranking system, that an already popular non-SSL site cannot outrank a new SSL site. But its an effective way of keeping new non-SSL sites in the wilderness - which is exactly the position here.

Another correspondent up-thread referred to blocking which is a seperate but related action. That is an unpredictable but lethal threat to non-SSL websites. Why risk it? developers.google.com/web…arn

As to sending passwords in plain text. Your claim most sites don't need logins presumes they are built offline and uploaded by a method like SFTP or FTP/ES (not FTP which also sends credentials in plain text). Something us old hands might do but not the target market for this deal. Most sites of this nature, if you bother to check their code, are built with some sort of CMS (Wordpress/Drupal/Joomla etc). These are done online with a login. That means without SSL/TLS you are broadcasting your Admin level credentials to the world. What could be more lethal to you and your platform?

This is not trolling. This is a career in building websites, running an ISP and most importantly having to help out too many souls who thought like you. Sorry to be so serious and effectively de-rail this thread but I really can't let your comments stand.
Edited by: "brainsys" 18th Dec 2017
Works for me.
brainsys4 h, 13 m ago

Mis-representing Google? Well everybody can read what they say in their …Mis-representing Google? Well everybody can read what they say in their own words and make a judgement on your comments. Here is what they said in 2014. They have turned up the wick since:https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal.htmlThat is exactly what I said. It effects all websites. That doesn't, if you understand the basics of Google's ranking system, that an already popular non-SSL site cannot outrank a new SSL site. But its an effective way of keeping new non-SSL sites in the wilderness - which is exactly the position here.Another correspondent up-thread referred to blocking which is a seperate but related action. That is an unpredictable but lethal threat to non-SSL websites. Why risk it? https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/10/avoid-not-secure-warnAs to sending passwords in plain text. Your claim most sites don't need logins presumes they are built offline and uploaded by a method like SFTP or FTP/ES (not FTP which also sends credentials in plain text). Something us old hands might do but not the target market for this deal. Most sites of this nature, if you bother to check their code, are built with some sort of CMS (Wordpress/Drupal/Joomla etc). These are done online with a login. That means without SSL/TLS you are broadcasting your Admin level credentials to the world. What could be more lethal to you and your platform?This is not trolling. This is a career in building websites, running an ISP and most importantly having to help out too many souls who thought like you. Sorry to be so serious and effectively de-rail this thread but I really can't let your comments stand.


Well yes, you have linked to a post that states HTTPS as a ranking signal 'effects less than 1% of global queries', and even for that 1% it is only a 'very lightweight signal'. It's quite a leap to go from 1% to 100%.

There are so many other ranking factors that carry more weight. Recently launched non-SSL websites can (and do) outrank recently launched SSL enabled sites.

There is no mention of blocking anywhere in that article.

I don't presume anything. There are other scenarios, many web based site builders for example. Mostly agree with your other points here, but, particularly in the case of WordPress, having outdated and vulnerable core/plugins is far more 'lethal' than not being HTTPS.

Of course it's trolling. Even your first comment warning about the terms and conditions of this deal have proved to be false. The ridiculous thing is, I keep saying I agree with you in principle, you're just taking it too far into the realms of scaremongering.
I had hoped to engage in a constructive discussion. However, you appear to be engaged in a point scoring exercise accusing me of trolling points I never made and made clear beforehand I had not made.

No point in wasting more time. I leave it to others to make their own judgements on whether to take advantage of this offer and whose points they should dismiss.

Having said that I will agree with you that if they should proceed they should used Cloudflare even if you are rather dismissive of the need as it adds a significant anti-ddos capability.

Best Wishes.
Signed up for this and now getting 30 - 40 calls a day from spammers wanting to prepare a website for me and a similar number of e-mails. Horrendous!!!
Is the site still working?
brainsys19th Dec

I had hoped to engage in a constructive discussion. However, you appear to …I had hoped to engage in a constructive discussion. However, you appear to be engaged in a point scoring exercise accusing me of trolling points I never made and made clear beforehand I had not made.No point in wasting more time. I leave it to others to make their own judgements on whether to take advantage of this offer and whose points they should dismiss.Having said that I will agree with you that if they should proceed they should used Cloudflare even if you are rather dismissive of the need as it adds a significant anti-ddos capability.Best Wishes.


I think we're simply not understanding each other then. I'm not trying to dismiss anything. Most of your points are spot on in principle, just a little too finite when here are cases in which SSL is not required, has none of the consequences you refer to, and in terms of this deal, can be overcome if you want it.

Absolutely not dismissing it generally. I personally use a combination of SSL, Cloudflare (or in some cases Incapsula), Sucuri, and admin urls require SSH tunnel access.
bfchris19/12/2017 16:59

Signed up for this and now getting 30 - 40 calls a day from spammers …Signed up for this and now getting 30 - 40 calls a day from spammers wanting to prepare a website for me and a similar number of e-mails. Horrendous!!!


This is why some hosting companies offer WHOIS privacy, as it's now quite common for spammers to contact the registrant of new domains and offer their services.
This isn't something unique to this company
Quiffco03/01/2018 10:55

This is why some hosting companies offer WHOIS privacy, as it's now quite …This is why some hosting companies offer WHOIS privacy, as it's now quite common for spammers to contact the registrant of new domains and offer their services. This isn't something unique to this company


Anything I can do about it now? Thanks for the reply
bfchris6th Jan

Anything I can do about it now? Thanks for the reply


you can ask for the details to be changed, but it may be too late. It should just be an initial rush then slowly die down
Deal is over
BMR16th Dec 2017

to get a .uk domain as far as i know you must own the co.uk domain too, I …to get a .uk domain as far as i know you must own the co.uk domain too, I think that all .co.uk domain owners have the relevant .uk domain reserved for them.


Not quite right... In 2013/14 Nominet checked details for existing domains.

They then reserved (until June 2019) the .uk version so it would be possible to register only for existing registrant.


However, if a .uk domain is registered but then renewal is not done, anyone can register the .uk

Also, if the .co.uk expires, a new registrant of that domain no longer has the .uk domain reserved for them.


In 2016, 123-reg offered free registration of the .uk version for existing customers, so I bet thousands were registered.

Then they hiked up prices (on top of Nominet hiking its prices), so there could be a load of .uk domains available.


I'm off to register one which had been reserved (but the firm that had the .co.uk went bust and their domain has finally expired!)
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text