Infrastructure Decisions · judgement tool
Do I need a status page?
Paying customers, SLAs, support load and B2B dependencies decide it — not company size. Get a Not yet / Probably yes / Yes-priority verdict with every factor's provenance shown.
A judgement tool, not a tool ranking · thresholds are StackSays rules, not industry standards · official facts verified 2026-07-17 · share the URL to share your answers
Your situation
The recommendation updates as you answer. Share the URL to share it.
Recommendation
Not yet
Based on the factors you set — 0 pushing toward adopting, 2 against.
Why it might be premature
- -10 Paying customers — Pre-revenue, a status page is usually not worth the setup yetStackSays rule
- -10 Too early — At prototype stage there's no audience to inform — premature (our judgement)StackSays estimate
When to reassess
Add one when you take on paying or B2B customers, or the first incident generates a wave of duplicate tickets.
Minimal implementation
A hosted status page (many have free tiers) wired to your uptime monitor. Start with a single public component before per-service granularity.
Risk of not doing it
During incidents, support gets flooded and customers assume the worst without an authoritative channel.
Cost & complexity once adopted
Low — a hosted status page plus an uptime monitor. The ongoing cost is the discipline of actually updating it during incidents.
This is a judgement tool, not a leaderboard. The StackSays rule and StackSays estimate factors are StackSays logic and opinion; the official fact factors link to official sources below. No industry-standard threshold is implied — the answer is driven by the conditions you set.
Official facts cited
| Source | Verified |
|---|---|
| Better Stack status pages / uptime (official) | 2026-07-17 |
Only the factors tagged “official fact” rest on these sources; rules and estimates are StackSays logic and are labeled as such.