Status Page Best Practices

A status page exists to answer one question fast, without a support ticket: "is this a known problem, or just me?" A status page that lags behind reality — updated only after a flood of support tickets forces the issue — fails at that one job, no matter how polished it looks.

Automate detection, keep updates human

The gap between an outage starting and a status page reflecting it is where trust is won or lost. Tying the page to automated monitoring — so a detected outage flips a component to "degraded" or "down" within minutes, not whenever someone gets around to it — closes most of that gap. The written explanation of what's happening is still worth having a human compose, but the initial "something is wrong" signal shouldn't wait on a person noticing first.

Break status down by component, not one big red light

A single "everything is fine / something is wrong" toggle for an entire product hides useful information. If email delivery is degraded but the core application is fine, a single combined status either falsely alarms users of the unaffected parts or — worse — hides a real problem under an overall "operational" status because most components are fine. Separate status per meaningful component (API, web app, email, each major integration) lets affected users find their specific answer immediately without reading through unrelated incident history.

Historical incident data is worth more than it looks

A visible incident history — not just current status — lets a customer evaluating reliability (or already skeptical after a recent problem) actually verify a track record instead of taking a vendor's word for it. It's also the practical foundation for the postmortem and SLA-credit conversations that follow any serious incident: dates and durations that are already public and timestamped, not reconstructed from memory afterward.

Host it separately from the infrastructure it reports on

A status page hosted on the same infrastructure as the product it monitors has an obvious single point of failure: exactly the outage that most needs communicating is the one most likely to also take the status page itself down. Hosting the status page on genuinely separate infrastructure (a different provider, a different region, at minimum a different deployment) means it stays reachable during the incidents that matter most.

Subscriptions turn a status page from pull to push

A status page only helps people who think to check it. Email or SMS subscriptions to status changes — ideally scoped to specific components rather than all-or-nothing — turn the page into something that reaches affected users proactively instead of requiring them to go looking for an answer during an outage they may not even know is happening yet.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should a status page be updated manually or automatically?

Both, for different parts — automated monitoring should trigger the initial status change within minutes, while the written explanation of cause and expected resolution is worth having a person compose rather than relying on generic automated text.

Is one combined status indicator good enough for a small product?

Even for a small product, splitting status by the 2-3 components users actually care about (the app, the API, email) tends to be worth the extra setup — a single indicator either hides partial problems or over-alarms for issues that don't affect most users.

Why host a status page separately from the product it reports on?

So the status page itself doesn't go down in exactly the outage it most needs to communicate — a shared point of failure defeats the page's purpose during the incidents that matter most.

Stop checking this by hand

NetTests runs this kind of check on a schedule, stores historical results, and alerts your team the moment something changes.

Start monitoring free →
No credit card required  ·  Free plan available