This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Suggestion on the Webpage Status Tool

First, I wanted to say that I think it's great that Garmin added this page where you can check the status of their services: https://connect.garmin.com/en-US/status. Now that I've been checking it due to the status of ActivityUploads being down (see thread Manual Import for tcx not working), I think an enhancement would make it more helpful to the user community... That enhancement really is just the addition of some more columns to provide more information when there is an issue. For example, on the current problem, all that shows is the up/down status of the service:

Wouldn't it be great if there were additional columns like: "Time Rpt'd", "Status", "ETF", and "More Info"?
Time Rpt'd would be the date the status of the service changed to Down (or when Garmin found out about it).
Status could be something like "Reported, Investigating, Working, etc."
ETF would be the Estimated Time of Fix... Would expect this mostly be TBD, but in cases where Garmin knows they're targeting a push of the fix tomorrow night, they could share that.
More Info would just be a place to put a link to the current Forum thread on the issue.

Example:

0 ASmugDill over 8 years ago

Wouldn't it be great if there were additional columns like: "Time Rpt'd", "Status", "ETF",

Well, no, because that would change the (user perception of) intent of the instrument – from simply being a way to check the status of a set of facilities available to users, to being a way to (also) monitor Garmin's process performance in rectifying issues – and I cannot see how it would “be great” for Garmin to open itself up to such additional scrutiny that does not benefit anyone in itself.

External scrutiny alone – without Management's desire for and commitment to process improvement (with or without scrutiny) – does not improve anything or even make users feel better. Being able to show or prove that a problem remained unresolved for six months does not then make it quicker to resolve or get it a higher priority going forward, when the priority is always a primarily function of both urgency and impact. (I note you did not ask to see the impact – or the number of users adversely impacted – of each issue. Does anyone really want to see their pressing issue only affects 500 active users out of a base of, say, 200,000 Garmin Connect users?) Users do not have a seat at the Management table, and the illusion of Garmin holding itself accountable to users of the Garmin Connect service to reduce mean-time-to-repair (or mean-time-to-recovery) doesn't help.