So long as I can fetch/commit to my repos, pretty much everything else is of secondary, tertiary, or no real importance to me.
(At work, I do indeed have systems running that monitor 200 statuses from client project homepages, almost all of which show better that 99.999% uptimes. And are practically useless. Most of them also monitor "canary" API requests which I strive to keep at 99.99% but don't always manage to achieve 99.9% - which is the very best and most expensive SLA we'll commit to.)
Then, you would show the status based on the continent.
If a sensor that's basically in the same datacenter says you're up, but the route into the datacenter is down, then what? multiply this by the complexity of the whole site, and monitoring it all with 100% fidelity is impossible. Not that it's not worth it to try, there's a team at GitHub that works on monitoring, but beyond motivation about keeping the SLA up, as a customer, unless you notice it's down, is it really down? In a globally distributed system, downtime, except for catastrophic downtime like this, is hard to define on a whole-site basis for all customers.
I don't think anybody asked for 100% fidelity. We are talking about a complete outage that affected at least North America and Europe. If the status page shows green in such a case, its fidelity is around 50%. People expect better from GitHub.
Total outages are rare enough, and there's enough other work, that spending time building a system for that, just doesn't seem like the best use of their time. though I'm biased, having faced that exact question from the inside, at different company.
This is impossible regardless of how godlike the design is... Nobody is asking for 100% fidelity.
All GitHub Pages say
> We're having a really bad day.
> The Unicorns have taken over. We're doing our best to get them under control and get GitHub back up and running.