[ucosty]

I think they mean that companies rarely update their status pages to reflect reality (for instance, AWS outages are rarely shown on their own status pages). This is often by design, company policy, or a desire to save face.

[deathanatos]

And it's so incredibly dumb. Companies need to get it through their thick heads that this is so incredibly short-sighted.

Not once has a status page that's devoid of information or slow to update ever saved face. I am far more annoyed to have to continue to verify "no, it is indeed that your service is down, not mine" and then file a support ticket. I am triply annoyed if the response from support is "ah yes that's a known problem and we're working on it" — known, and you just didn't bother to communicate.

I miss the days when Github had graphs. Even if they simply hadn't had the time to put a message on the page, you could tell from the graphs that it was Github. But even with "more information" that some PM might not like being put out publicly, Github felt more reliable & stable in those days.

At the end of the day, no amount of political gamesmanship will save you from having to actually run a reliable service, and gamesmanship just makes it more likely I'll ascribe false positives to your service, further lowering my perception of its reliability.

It's so watered down that the "AWS" emoji in our Slack instance is literally a meme of the status page.

[the-dude]

I bet as long as the status page is not updated, it is not taken into account when calculating quarterly or yearly uptime statistics.

I am sure that counts. Probably tied into someone's bonus as well.