Add 15 minutes and/or 20 minutes check intervals
I understand the drive to keep the number of options small, but to me there is pretty clearly a "hole" in the available check interval options.
For reference, current interval options are:
15s, 30s, 1m, 2m, 5m, 10m, 30m, 1h
My "standard" checks for important stuff use a 5 minutes interval.
I'm looking to lower my costs by using a larger interval for some of my less important stuff, but right now my only options are the 10 minutes interval, which is not really going to save me enough money to be worthwhile, and the 30 minutes interval, which would save me quite a lot but seems a bit excessive. If something is offline for 25 minutes, I want to know about it with a 100% probability.
I think a 15 minutes interval would be a great addition as a better compromise between cost and resolution. I think a 20 minutes interval could be considered too, though that's less important.
(Note that my suggestion is quite distinct from the "Add more time intervals" suggestion, which proposed 1 hour and 1 day intervals and was "Declined" despite the fact that 1 hour intervals were eventually implemented anyway.)
Indeed we don’t want too many options for simplicity but we do support custom intervals per client if needed so I’ve just granted you access to 15m and 20m intervals on your account.
If it's really true that "not enough people want this", then letting this open for voting is best, since the low number of votes is going to confirm your suspicion.
But if it turns out that "enough people want this", then letting this open for voting is best, since the high number of votes is going to disconfirm your suspicion.
One of the greatest strengths of your service is that it's flexible and self-service, unlike almost all other "Enterprise™" uptime monitoring services. I just don't see why you absolutely want to hide such a useful feature behind high-touch manual request bullshit. What is this going to do other than needlessly frustrate users and increase your support burden?!
I don't see how "not wanting to pollute the UI" is even an argument here, the suggestion is to add 2 useful options to a dropdown box that most people will almost never access. (How much time per day do people spend selecting their check intervals?)
I'm confident not enough people want this to be worth adding publicly, and with the first answer I made people looking for this know they can simply ask me to get the custom intervals granted if needed.
If you are confident nobody else wants this, then there is no point in preventing people from voting for it.
By prematurely closing this, you are ensuring that the only way to express interest for this idea is to complain about it, instead of just voting.
I think you should consider distorting the voting process a bit less eagerly, generally.
You don't even have to implement every highly voted idea, but at least let users speak first.
Not really, there's already a lot of options and nobody else complained about this. I don't want to pollute the UI with every features everyone wants, it's my job to keep the product reasonable for everyone ;)
Wow that's weird.
Couldn't you leave this open for voting to better gauge user interest?
There seems to be a lot of premature closing around here.