Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?
Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021



Ever wanted to keep a backup of StatusCake data without manual entry or usage of the API? This article will take you through a different and automated method of doing so for the Up and Down test alerts. This is done with the help of the Zapier service, and the data will be stored in Google Sheets.
It’s easy to set up automated input of your downtime data to Google Sheets through Zapier. Each time that a website goes down, a new row can be added to your spreadsheet, and another row will be added when it comes back up. This gives you a great raw record of your downtimes, and this data can be retained for as long as you choose.
The Zapier integration can grab info from each alert, including the test’s name, the UP/DOWN status, the time of the alert, the location that the testing came from, and the status code that was present.
You can choose exactly how you want the spreadsheet to be formatted when creating the Zap, and which details should be included, when this is completed you’ll see the up and down alerts looking something like the above in your spreadsheet.
If you would like to give this Zap configuration a try, you should use StatusCake as the “Trigger” and Google Sheets as the action, it’s just these 2 steps that would be required.
Share this
3 min read In the first two posts of this series, we explored how alert noise emerges from design decisions, and why notification lists fail to create accountability when responsibility is unclear. There’s a deeper issue underneath both of those problems. Many alerting systems are designed without being clear about the outcome they’re meant to produce. When teams
3 min read In the previous post, we looked at how alert noise is rarely accidental. It’s usually the result of sensible decisions layered over time, until responsibility becomes diffuse and response slows. One of the most persistent assumptions behind this pattern is simple. If enough people are notified, someone will take responsibility. After more than fourteen years
3 min read In a previous post, The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most, we explored how incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones. These are moments where decision-making under pressure and cognitive load matter more than perfect root cause analysis. When systems don’t support people clearly in those moments, teams compensate.
4 min read In the previous post, we looked at what happens after detection; when incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones, with cognitive load as the real constraint. This post assumes that context. The question here is simpler and more practical. What actually helps teams think clearly and act well once things are already
3 min read In the previous post, we explored how AI accelerates delivery and compresses the time between change and user impact. As velocity increases, knowing that something has gone wrong before users do becomes a critical capability. But detection is only the beginning. Once alerts fire and dashboards light up, humans still have to interpret what’s happening,
5 min read In a recent post, I argued that AI doesn’t fix weak engineering processes; rather it amplifies them. Strong review practices, clear ownership, and solid fundamentals still matter just as much when code is AI-assisted as when it’s not. That post sparked a follow-up question in the comments that’s worth sitting with: With AI speeding things
Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021