It's a good page, but also gets posted quite often here https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Is a few times in the last 6 years really that often?
The Financial Times’ 404 page
31–40 of 96 posts
Re: The Financial Times’ 404 page
#32Surprised no one has mentioned dogs at Amazon yet
Re: The Financial Times’ 404 page
#33Siemens has a pong game on there 404 page.
Re: The Financial Times’ 404 page
#34"The best outcome was unachievable, so you arrived here instead"
Story of a surprising proportion of human existence.
Re: The Financial Times’ 404 page
#35Somewhere, some ops engineer is being pinged because the alerting system has noticed a huge increase in hits to the error page.
Re: The Financial Times’ 404 page
#36I love that kind of attention to detail. It's easy to treat the 404 page as something not needing any thought at all so it's refreshing to see some still care about such seemingly irrelevant details.
Re: The Financial Times’ 404 page
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's is a little quirky: https://google.com/foo "Error 404 (Not Found)!!1" Full disclosure I work at Google.
Other google domains serve different 404 pages on different URLs sometimes, for example: - https://www.youtube.com/djhjwhfkffs - https://www.youtube.com/varz - https://www.youtube.com/abortabortabort
https://twitter.com/jeffdean/status/1282882643277656065 seems to explain it - "varz" is one of the "z pages" (a convention that by now has leaked outside Google), so it's handled by the Google web server infrastructure, not by the YouTube app. And "abortabortabort" and a few others are commands that are restricted at the load-balancer level.
Re: The Financial Times’ 404 page
#38The level of care and attention to detail isn't limited just to their 404's - I find the FT is the best paper out there for macro issues.
Re: The Financial Times’ 404 page
#39It appears to be suffering the HN "Hug of Death". Here's the version from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20211024193418/https://www.ft.co...
Tragedy of the commons strikes again.
To pick on a comment probably not meant as serious economics: It is most emphatically not a tragedy of the commons. We don't commonly own FT.com or share in its use. It is privately owned and thus a tragedy for FT's owners, if it significantly impacts their profits. Probably not.