so what I tried to do is to make it somewhat expensive to do that, by limiting by IPs and fingerprints - so it will be harder ("more expensive") from just getting unique views
actually alert fatigue started from healthcare initially where doctors become desensitized to safety alerts, and as a result ignore or fail to respond appropriately to such warnings - it is the same problem in tech companies where you get all these muted Slack channels. It’s a problem almost every company faces at some point of its life
one of our goals is to help you better manage those alerts and reduce the total number. I would have loved to hear more about those 500 alerts use case, im sure checking up Keep would be a super interested use case
actually, it’s 100 workflows, 20 providers and 10 users. important to note that it’s per deduplicated alert and not every event ingested by keep. what got you surprised about this pricing model?
it's definitely relevant for early-stage products who deeply care about realiability. are you already handling some amount of alerts today? there's a bunch of stuff you can do with workflows to automate processes and help your users.
we do integrate with AWS Cloudwatch but not yet with Vercel's observability, but can add that if you want to give it try
why just now? there are many known attacks (SSRF[1] for example) that are based on IMDSv1.
maybe i'm missing something but feels like this should have been done a long ago?
companies often find themselves using more than 1 tool that generates alerts, for instance when Datadog is not sufficient (lacking some integration, need some other dashboard capability, etc.).
Grafana Observability survey mentioned that 52% of companies who answered the survey use more than 6(!) different observability tools.[1]
let's leave the fact that Datadog itself expensive as hell and the fact that organizations do move towards consolidations with observability-it's never enough alone.