Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 404 Test: Wildly Brilliant or User Suicide?

blog.dougpetkanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: The 404 Test: Wildly Brilliant or User Suicide?

#31

Post by ajkirwin »

nostrademons wrote: post #27
DLWormwood wrote: post #9

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…

Maybe I've just got more tech-savvy friends than most, but I don't know anyone who assumes a 404 when following an internal link is their fault. Usually they just assume that the webmaster was sloppy. 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, lik…

Usually when I see a 503, I think, "Great. The site is f-ing broken/overloaded/down" again.

A 404.. I find, not so much.

Re: The 404 Test: Wildly Brilliant or User Suicide?

#34

Post by sh1mmer »

Lots of people only look at a feature once out of curiosity. Feature usage is a different thing. Just noticing something is there might cause me to click. Whether I would continue to use it would totally depend.

All this tracks is how many would try out a feature at least once which isn't the same as how many people actually want it.

Re: The 404 Test: Wildly Brilliant or User Suicide?

#35

Post by simplegeek »

nostrademons wrote: post #27
DLWormwood wrote: post #9

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…

Maybe I've just got more tech-savvy friends than most, but I don't know anyone who assumes a 404 when following an internal link is their fault. Usually they just assume that the webmaster was sloppy. 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, lik…

Why not simply be honest and tell them "Hey, we intend to introduce these features and testing few ideas. So far, 445 people have expressed their interests, including you. Thank you for your interest and time. You can enter your email below (this is optional)and we will let you know as soon as this is available. Thanks again."

Two birds in one shot :)

Re: The 404 Test: Wildly Brilliant or User Suicide?

#36

Post by Rexxar »

dandelany wrote: post #3

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.

I think a small "beta" icon near the link could be a good thing too : It prepares the user to have an error message.

less surprise ==> less disappointment

Re: The 404 Test: Wildly Brilliant or User Suicide?

#37

Post by 45454564654 »

jzell wrote: post #2

I really like this philosophy. Why waste precious development time early on building something no one wants?

Unless it turns out that people really do want it. In which case you've just pissed off hundreds or thousands of your potential early adopters with a 404 page, and demonstrated that you can't even build and link to a simple, basic, web page. And, come on, who here does not hit F5 when they reach a 404 page? I've never heard of anything so stupid in my life - the guy who dreamed this up has just got to have an MBA.

Re: The 404 Test: Wildly Brilliant or User Suicide?

#38

Post by jmtulloss »

Rexxar wrote: post #36
dandelany wrote: post #3

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.

I think a small "beta" icon near the link could be a good thing too : It prepares the user to have an error message. less surprise ==> less disappointment

I don't think so. People might look at that and think "Oh, this isn't ready yet." While that might be true, it also destroys your test.

Re: The 404 Test: Wildly Brilliant or User Suicide?

#40

Post by jodrellblank »

Heck, with this we can completely solve "build something people want" and fill in the ever mysterious step 2 into the bargain:

1) Create a home page peppered with links (all 404s)

2) Fill in the links, prioritising by link click count, building your company into one which solely and only does Things People Want (tm).

3) Profit

Post reply on HN