everyone's got something to flog under the guise of genuine advice
MG, I took this to mean that when researching those forums where experienced professionals gather to talk about which hosts are best and which are worst (much as we do with listing sites -- though I wouldn't consider myself a pro!), one should always consider the source. True?
I definitely agree, if so.
Webspace: 2,500 MB
Data Transfer: 100 MB
As I mentioned before, that space limitation is probably well beyond what any of us need for our websites.
The data transfer limit worries me a bit, though. Here's why:
Let's say that you have your 15-page website, and each page has an average of 3 images on it, each of which is 20k in size. That would be a well-optimized set of images, and that's probably a low average given that your site would likely have images as headers, menu items, stuff like that, as well as photos of your property.
Anyway, that means that if someone viewed every page on your site, they would use up 900k of your data transfer allocation to do it.
With a transfer limit of only 100MB, your 112th visitor for the month would put you over the data transfer limit. Presumably they would either be denied, or you would have to pay for every kB that you are over the limit.
That's not a lot of visitors. Even if you say that most users won't view your whole website (true), and estimate that each would view perhaps 3 of your pages, you're still limited to less than 600 or so visitors per month. Still, not a whole lot, since (please correct me if I'm wrong) that includes search engine bots.
I think it's a great place to start, since Hanorah mentioned that it's free, but in the long term, you'd want a host that counts data transfer in the high GB.
Just my opinion!