

The 404 Test: Wildly Brilliant or User Suicide? - thedob
http://blog.dougpetkanics.com/the-404-test-wildly-brilliant
Alternate link - http://dob.posterous.com/the-404-test-wildly-brilliant<p>Apparently the DNS may not have propagated fully. But it's quite ironic that the link is leading to a 404 for some people.
======
dandelany
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.

~~~
DLWormwood
> 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 assumption on the part of
the user, an assumption that can be readily exploited.

~~~
nostrademons
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, 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. ;-)

~~~
simplegeek
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 :)

------
thedob
Alternate link - <http://dob.posterous.com/the-404-test-wildly-brilliant>

Apparently the blog.dougpetkanics.com DNS may not have propagated yet. Sorry!

~~~
azharcs
your site is showing 404 error too, Maybe even you are testing to to see how
many people will click on the link. ;)

~~~
13ren
Now that many people have clicked on it, he wrote the story?

------
keefe
"But upon further thought, the 404 test is brilliant. Why? Well as the CEO
aptly put it, most of the time the visitors to the site blame the 404 on their
own browser, connection, or service provider anyway."

I think this is a faulty argument, since you know most users will hit refresh
and realize it is your site after about 30 seconds? People are pretty familiar
with this new fangled web browsing on those interwebz now...

------
andreyf
The author is making the assumption that clicking on the 404 link is
correlated with interest in the feature... I'm not sure if that's always the
case.

~~~
13ren
I agree it's not a perfect correlation, but there would be some, most of the
time.

------
ks
Is this supposed to go to a 404 page?

~~~
breck
No: <http://dob.posterous.com/the-404-test-wildly-brilliant>

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

~~~
andreyf
The philosophy is a truism, but the methodology is flawed - users don't know
if they need a feature until they've used it.

------
timcederman
This is terrible. You could at least put up a custom page, with perhaps an
email field offering to notify the user when that feature is available.

------
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

------
utnick
I read about a similar idea ( in 4hww maybe? )

Basically take out adwords ads for products you havent developed yet, see
which ones get clicked, develop those products.

------
grhino
Anybody else have a problem with the fact that visitors will blame their
computer or their ISP first before the website that returned the 404 error?

My personal experience is that if users are confused about what system to
blame, they blame any systems they can!

I'd guess this approach works if you have a large user base with a lot of
churn. It doesn't matter if you upset a particular user because they probably
wouldn't return anyways.

------
truebosko
I'm sorry but there are many, many other ways to test if people are interested
in something. This is a horrible idea.

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.

------
mechanical_fish
I think it's almost always a bad idea to create a subconscious association
between your brand and something that doesn't work properly.

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.

------
babul
On a lot of sites, especially those with a set navigation layout (where a new
link/button is more obvious) and regular user-base, users will often click on
a new link/button just to see what it is and not always because they want it.

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.

------
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.

------
thomasmallen
Or you could put a simple tracker on the page...I'm surprised that someone
there couldn't think of a better approach to web stats than Apache error
logs...

------
babul
"Fool me once Shame on you. Fool me twice Shame on me." --Chinese Proverb.

~~~
jodrellblank
"Fool me once, shame on ... {404 proverb not found} shame on you. Fool me,
can't get fooled again"

------
haasted
Any guesses as to the name of the unnamed "wildly popular web site"? :)

~~~
swombat
Twitter.

They also do these tests regularly to make sure we still need existing
features.

~~~
jonknee
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

~~~
dbrush
It was a joke.

------
hc
this seems like a really boneheaded idea considering that search engine
ranking algorithms penalize broken links

