Every time this kind of thing happens HNers love to grip about how the status pages aren't correct yet. It's so weird -- like the people freaking out about the outage are going to be updating their uptime trackers right now or something. Who cares? It'll be fixed later.
I think the point is that a "Status Page" should show the accurate, current status of the system. Not a place holder for "we'll fix it later". People look at a status page to know what's happening now.
This is entirely in line with my experience dealing with outages. 85% of the time to fix consists of fielding requests for status updates.
It's like when people push the elevator button repeatedly if it's taking a while to arrive, only pushing the elevator button doesn't cause it to take even longer.
It doesn't. The status page is currently showing information about the outage. And the 100% uptime number is probably still correct, since it's only been out for a couple of hours.
> And the 100% uptime number is probably still correct, since it's only been out for a couple of hours.
It's listed as "Uptime for the current quarter"; if they mean that as "calendar quarter", i.e. since the start of the year, then we aren't even 100 hours into the quarter so we should be well below 100% by now.
You might be correct, but why would anyone care about quarter-to-date as opposed to a rolling quarter ending now? The latter would mean that an outage of X duration will always reduce this statistic by the same amount regardless of how close the nearest calendar quarter boundary is, which seems like a superior quality for such a statistic to have.
That would be a completely fair metric to publish, but it doesn't look like what Slack is publishing. Of course, it's possible that it is and it's just phrased somewhat poorly.
