21–30 of 48 posts
Poll users, send out a newsletter and see the response, post a link to a page telling them what's coming and see how many click. If no one clicks, then no one will miss out on this new upcoming feature that all of a sudden isn't coming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> make the link point to a page that says "Sorry, we're still working on [feature X]. Check back soon!" and avoid looking like an amateur? You've officially missed the point of the article. The argument is not that you look like an amateur, but that the user thinks the problem is with their computer or ISP. Since most 404's are due to user error in URI entry, web filters or cross-site link rot, this is a reasonable a…
I got that, I just don't necessarily agree with it. IMHO, if you've got a web app that users are savvy enough to know that they need, especially one that costs money, 9 times out of 10 they're going to be savvy enough to know that getting a 404 page with your branding on it is your company's problem, not theirs. I know this because I work for a company that provides an enterprise B2B web app, and customers already co…
Any guesses as to the name of the unnamed "wildly popular web site"? :)
1. Recently acquired by MS for a rumored 100M.
2. CEO is talking about 404 pages. Powerset's CEO is indeed a tech guy, Barney Pell.
3. "Thousands" of visitors per day sounds about right for powerset.
Any guesses as to the name of the unnamed "wildly popular web site"? :)
I really like this philosophy. Why waste precious development time early on building something no one wants?
A solid idea, but why not spend 5 more minutes, make the link point to a page that says "Sorry, we're still working on [feature X]. Check back soon!" and avoid looking like an amateur? Better yet, include a form on that landing page asking how important the feature would be to the user, and get the best of both worlds.
> make the link point to a page that says "Sorry, we're still working on [feature X]. Check back soon!" and avoid looking like an amateur? You've officially missed the point of the article. The argument is not that you look like an amateur, but that the user thinks the problem is with their computer or ISP. Since most 404's are due to user error in URI entry, web filters or cross-site link rot, this is a reasonable a…
Why not use a 503 Service Unavailable? This is telling (stretching ;-)) the truth, and people do assume that a 503 is temporary, because that's the explicit point of the message. And you can throw in an e-mail link, like someone suggesed, if they want to be notified when the service is "back up".
Or I suppose you could use 501 Not Implemented if you really want to be honest, but that's boring. ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter. They also do these tests regularly to make sure we still need existing features.
Twitter 404s for a whole other set of reasons. But this site isn't Twitter, because it has been acquired: > ... and it was acquired not so long ago for a figure with 9 digits
I cannot help but think this is only useful on (high-volume) sites where individual users are of low value i.e. do not pay to use service or contribute much, and for anything more sophisticated or with savvy users it would be deterimental (imagine seeing this on the stock-market web-app you pay $$$ for).
It all depends on how often you use this trick really.
Yeah, maybe the rational user will conclude that the 404 was somehow their ISP's fault (although I, for my part, tend to regard 404s as a sign that either the link or the site has aged out of existence). But convincing the user's conscious mind is only part of the battle. At the subconscious level, you've just lost: The user now associates your site with brittleness and broken promises.
I think it's probably better to test with a "beta" page, or a "coming soon!" mailing list, or something other than a metaphorical brick wall.