| 5:39 pm on Sep 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
OK it is quite believable then, as no one else is a non-believer?
| 6:30 pm on Sep 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Maybe their host was in one of the Katrina affected states?
| 6:33 pm on Sep 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
happened before Katrina
| 7:13 pm on Sep 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 7:56 pm on Sep 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Mighty expensive publicity stunt. That's about $4.5m per week per site.
| 10:09 pm on Sep 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't see that kind of downtime being for an upgrade. Sites making that kind of money can afford to have their upgrade done by someone who knows how to do it with minimal downtime. On the other hand, what kind of failure could cause this kind of downtime with such major sites? Even if it was a massive hardware failure, you'd think they could replace the parts quickly and fairly inexpensively compared to what the downtime is costing them.
| 10:47 pm on Sep 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|[...]accounting for 3% of Gap Inc.'s total revenue of $16.3 billion[..] |
3%? It's bu**er all of their overall profits. I bet they're probablt still running a 1999 operation that's costing them more than they're earning.
Imagine - average sale per visitor is 34.70$ (avg. between both sites). Now, imagine some bright chap/pette(?) convinced the boss that by revamping the two sites gap.inc can raise avg. sale per customer to 50$.
Bingo, those 4 weeks downtime is recouped within a year. Worth it, no?
| 11:40 pm on Sep 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Bingo, those 4 weeks downtime is recouped within a year. Worth it, no? |
Not when it could be done with close to zero downtime by almost any professional.
| 12:13 am on Sep 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Four weeks downtime for a significant business? There have got to be people falling on their swords, or having their heads put on pikes.
| 5:03 am on Sep 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This article implies it was originally to take 'several days'.
maybe someone forgot to do a backup? )
| 12:11 am on Sep 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Looks like it's not completely shut down.
You can get by the closed site screen... i did with gap.com/test then that opened things up and I wound up getting to products [gap.com...]
| 12:48 am on Sep 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Looks like gap.com/test no longer works. Guess you were spotted!
| 12:50 am on Sep 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ah. I followed your product link and after three more clicks I got a pop-up:
Welcome to the Preview of Gap.com
You are part of a limited number of people to preview our new store.
Based on our customers' feedback, we've updated our site with innovative new features to bring you an extraordinary shopping experience.
Start shopping Gap.com >>
Thank you for helping us bring you a better shopping experience.
Still does not validate [validator.w3.org]!
| 5:44 pm on Sep 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And the unemployment figures rise by 1
| 5:06 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I couldn't browse their site with JS turned off. If this is what the search engines see, then that's not good.
It's funny how they just don't care if search engines can't follow and index their product pages. This could result in many more sales in their stores for baby clothes, maternity clothes, kids clothes, as well as their mens and women's lines.
If Amazon can do it, then Gap can do it. Doesn't this seem inexcusable in the year 2005? It boggles the mind.