4 ms·
By relying on opt-in you won't test whether a feature actually works for the average user, so if you don't test it, you might roll something useless/confusing/a
by Vinnl 8y ago
By relying on opt-in you won't test whether a feature actually works for the average user, so if you don't test it, you might roll something useless/confusing/actively harmful out to all of them instead of just a few.
- zamalek 8y agoExactly. The recent Windows 10 update fiascos demonstrate this perfectly: they are opt-in (Insider program) and there were too few users experiencing the bugs to overcome the noise of those who weren't. You need a truly random sample.
- benatkin 8y agoI think they updated too many parts of Windows at once, not too many computers at once. And I'm not certain that a delayed rollout would have fixed it. Is it fair that a random sampling of people are given the problem?
- hutzlibu 8y agoSo instead of having enough voluntary or paid testers to detect catastrophic, file deleting bugs in a new version, your solution is to just roll out the new changes to random users expecting a stable system? Something went terrible wrong somewhere, that we got to this.
- enriquto 8y agoAnd that's OK. Being honest to your users is much more important that having the most efficient deploy system. I, for one, as a matter of principle, opt-in to all user tracking systems that are disabled by default, and try to opt-out whenever they are enabled by default. In the case of firefox, it was never clear to me that the tracking/remote install capability was enabled by default.