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
There’s a lot that can be automated within StatusCake using the Zapier app. Today we’ll take you through how to keep an automatic log of any tests added to your StatusCake account, all the data will be stored on Google Sheets, and the data for each new test will occupy one row.
We do store similar data for you with our Audit log feature, but using this method allows you to keep your own hard copy which can be downloaded for offline access.
Before you start, you should decide which pieces of data will be useful. Zapier is able to grab the following information upon test creation:
- Test Name
- Test URL
- Test Type
- Test initial Status (UP/DOWN)
- Test ID
- Paused (0/1)
- Check Rate
- Contact Groups (Returned as CUID)
- Test Tags
You will be prompted to assign these data fields to a column in your spreadsheet, assign the ones that you would like to store, and you will then be able to see the expected results within Zapier.
Once you submit the Zap and enable it, a new row will be added to the spreadsheet each time that you add a new test within StatusCake.
StatusCake Team
Share this
More from StatusCake
A Notification List Is Not a Team
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
James Barnes
February 11, 2026
Alert Noise Isn’t an Accident — It’s a Design Decision
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.
James Barnes
February 4, 2026
The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most
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
James Barnes
January 28, 2026
When Things Go Wrong, Systems Should Help Humans — Not Fight Them
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,
James Barnes
January 21, 2026
When AI Speeds Up Change, Knowing First Becomes the Constraint
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
James Barnes
January 14, 2026
Make Your Engineering Processes Resilient. Not Your Opinions About AI
4 min read Why strong reviews, accountability, and monitoring matter more in an AI-assisted world Artificial intelligence has become the latest fault line in software development. For some teams, it’s an obvious productivity multiplier. For others, it’s viewed with suspicion. A source of low-quality code, unreviewable pull requests, and latent production risk. One concern we hear frequently goes
James Barnes
January 8, 2026