Its conflicting for a company to show its own status page I suppose. Its in its own interest to get it to be green as much as possible, even if its just for display's sake as a false sense of security.
This is actually a hard problem because many of these services are localized using BGP anycasting. So the status checking would have to have probe nodes all over the world.
Possibly many of the outages you happen to be seeing are in reality not that large thus not meeting the threshold to have a post, or major status update.
Anybody else have a bad experience with Google Cloud Storage? I'm wondering if we're better off going with S3. Most users on my site are uploading photos, so when that dies, everything is down.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1338/are-collecti...
Don't get me wrong, I love AWS and use it every day, but it's a little insulting to pretend that things haven't gone wrong when they quite obviously have.
I know Amazon aren't the most transparent company in the world but why even bother having a status page if everyone has to turn to twitter to validate the outage?
Last night while sitting around waiting for cloudfront to come back so I could get on with my work I turned to HN to give me a bit of reading material. My word, sooooo many of the articles linked to on the front page were missing their static assets because of the AWS outage. Would be really interesting to know what percentage of the internet was affected.