From the article: “A 2022 survey of scientists in France, for instance, found that 75% were willing to publish null results they had produced, but only 12.5% were able to do so.”
If you think it will be helpful to others to know about specific failure, put it in a blogpost or even on arxiv. Or talk about it at conference (for CS, workshop).
Also, if we use publications as a measure of scientists success, and we do, is a scientist with a lot of null results really successful?
That is a non-ideal way for the scientific community at large to maintain such info. Trying to go through traditional peer review process is probably also non-ideal for this type of work though, for reasons you cited. We need to be willing to look at publication as something more broadly defined in order to incentivize the creation of and contribution to that sort of knowledge base. It shouldn't be implemented as a normal journal just meant for null results - there's really no need for this sort of thing to be peer reviewed specifically at the prepub stage. But it should still count as a meaningful type of scientific contribution.