37signals report card
37signals.com
37signals.com
Please see here for why average is not a good metric. http://zedshaw.com/essays/programmer_stats.html
It is especially dangerous for 37signals to do this because a large percentage of web developers look up to them for best practices.
Leaving aside the technical issues even from a customer point of view using average to measure performance is pernicious. There are scenarios where the average remains the same while almost half their customers are experiencing load times that have doubled. What should the report card say in that case?
This seems somewhat disingenuous, considering that the rating scale was only out of three, and the "highest" level is used to show any satisfaction whatsoever. Their copy implies some sort of rigor to their rating process, and suggests that the "highest rating" is somehow significant and indicative of inordinate quality, as would be implied by a five or ten out of ten. A three out of three when the bottom two ratings indicate dissatisfaction or displeasure isn't really saying much. I'd think that it's fair to assume that the majority of most customer bases like the product in some way. A more realistic description would be to say that "92% of our customers were pleased with our service."
It's like saying that 92% of students in a pass/fail class earned the highest grade. It might technically be correct, but it doesn't mean anything.
In fact, for last month or so, every second and third day, I see a tweet from them in my timeline saying "Sorry for disruption in ________service of <product>"!
It seems like the critics of which metrics are highlighted are missing the point... the average person who uses their products or plans to sees a company who is willing to communicate how they are doing.
If you need to dig into more detailed stats, they're not doing a good job with how their service performs. The whole point of their services is so that you don't need to worry about those things :o)
All you have to do is:
- maintain your own server
- design the interface
- write the code
- test the code
- fix bugs on a regular basis
And that all easily costs less than $20/mo.
I believe people are so 'ga-ga' (to use your term) because they keep it to the bare minimal (but good luck figuring out what that minimal is!) instead of adding thousands of features. We've been using basecamp exhaustively for a couple years. Is it perfect? No. But it's the best good-enough I've found to get shit done.