3 ms·

I wasn't talking about the biases that affect a team's response to a given bug but, rather, the ability merely to know whether a given release has more bugs or

I wasn't talking about the biases that affect a team's response to a given bug but, rather, the ability merely to know whether a given release has more bugs or fewer bugs than others, and the biases that can effect this count. > In my experience, you get a bug report for every hundred or thousand affected users, if that; so excuse me for not having much faith in such statistics. But the number of reports should still be roughly proportional to the number of bugs in the wild, shouldn't they? That's all that is necessary to compare one release to another, particularly if all you're looking for is significant quality degradation, on the scale discussed in the article. And is it really your position that these statistics are worse than a few users' anecdotal views about which release is better?

toyg 12y ago
> But the number of reports should still be roughly proportional to the number of bugs in the wild, shouldn't they? That's just an article of faith. Regardless, part of the problem is where those bugs are. Maybe file-tagging involves millions of LoCs and it's now completely bugfree, but if wifi connections keep having DNS problems because of one single bug, overall experience is much more affected than it would be in the opposite case (bugfree wifi and buggy file-tagging). > And is it really your position that these statistics are worse than a few users' anecdotal views When "a few users" are your most ardent evangelists (Arment, Gruber etc), I'd say you should worry regardless.