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.
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?<p>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.
Alternate link - <a href="http://dob.posterous.com/the-404-test-wildly-brilliant" rel="nofollow">http://dob.posterous.com/the-404-test-wildly-brilliant</a><p>Apparently the blog.dougpetkanics.com DNS may not have propagated yet. Sorry!
"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."<p>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...
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.
Heck, with this we can completely solve "build something people want" and fill in the ever mysterious step 2 into the bargain:<p>1) Create a home page peppered with links (all 404s)<p>2) Fill in the links, prioritising by link click count, building your company into one which solely and only does Things People Want (tm).<p>3) Profit
I read about a similar idea ( in 4hww maybe? )<p>Basically take out adwords ads for products you havent developed yet, see which ones get clicked, develop those products.
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?<p>My personal experience is that if users are confused about what system to blame, they blame any systems they can!<p>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.
I'm sorry but there are many, many other ways to test if people are interested in something. This is a horrible idea.<p>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.
I think it's almost always a bad idea to create a subconscious association between your brand and something that doesn't work properly.<p>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 <i>conscious</i> 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.<p>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.
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.<p>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).<p>It all depends on how often you use this trick really.
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.<p>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.
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...