4 ms·

> Of course if you’re just running a website and you’ve got a nice network effect going on, or you’ve got your customers locked into contracts It’s perfectly f

by rusk 5y ago

> Of course if you’re just running a website and you’ve got a nice network effect going on, or you’ve got your customers locked into contracts It’s perfectly fine as a rule of thumb and regardless of how the software comes to be in your possession it is relevant unless there is absolutely no delivery pipeline or other people involved in said delivery. Even for personal projects the recency effect comes into play and it will be harder for you to address something 6 months down the line as you struggle to recall why you did it that effin way.

alistairSH 5y ago
Even assuming it's true (and I believe it is, if 100x is really "orders of magnitude"), there is value in having valid research on the real costs of fixing bugs across various industries and software types. It can drive innovation in the testing/QA space. It can drive investment in test pipelines. Currently, large companies likely have enough software, with enough defect escape, to generate their own metrics. Smaller companies are left to rely on the "100x" rule of thumb and guess at what level of defect escape maximizes their resource allocation.