Because of state and federal regulations, the path through back doors, fire exits and water coolers are always shorter from engineer's desks to the planetary atmosphere than it is through the front door and reception areas.
To be fair my information was not accurate. It was fast but when I said it was a problem with our "backbone" I was wrong (it was a networking problem but not the backbone). I favour speed over accuracy here, but the status page wants to be fast and accurate.
My main interest was that you were aware and that a fix was on the way. That's the difference between having to desperately act myself or just sit tight and placate clients. So, I appreciated your original comment!
The comment on HN had more useful information (that the issue was understood and a fix coming) before that status page then updated. I think that's their point.
Prior to that, it was some time (in the "all my sites are wrecked" timescale) before the status page had any indication of an outage.
The way I read their complaint was that they should have something on their website to indicate they were down. Anyway, at the time they complained, the status page also already said that the issue was identified and a fix was being rolled out.
Their post was saying that the dedicated status domain should be the first place to get useful information. There were multiple new threads on HN before the status page was updated at all. I'm sure there are legal reasons, but it's not ideal.
Then there was the CTO's (appreciated!) comment prior to the status page's second update with information suggesting this would be resolved soon (which IMO is the information everyone needs to report back to clients, bosses, etc).
That the status page was subsequently updated prior to OP's complaint isn't really relevant. It's still a point of discussion, whether someone comments immediately or later, right?
