Comments on: uTest Bug Battle: Which Social Network Is The Buggiest?

By: VISHNU : SQAGUY

VISHNU : SQAGUY — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:08:39 +0000

Fight between social networks.. That is cool!
Pss.. Havent yet started using a myspace account

By: Boston Startups: uTest – QA from the Crowd – What Else Can the Crowd Provide? | adrianmott.com

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:17:43 +0000

[...] http://www.tech...s-the-buggiest/ [...]

By: Bug Battle Part III: Twitter Apps! | Software Testing Blog

Bug Battle Part III: Twitter Apps! | Software Testing Blog — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:03:42 +0000

[...] around the popular micro-blogging site, we figured they’d make a perfect subject for our now famous Bug Battle. Here are the Twitter apps we’ll be testing, in no particular [...]

By: Eat Bugs at the Under the Radar Conference! Mmmm!

Eat Bugs at the Under the Radar Conference! Mmmm! — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:16:39 +0000

[...] *Check out “uTest Bug Battle: Which Social Network Is The Buggiest?“ [...]

By: Die t3n-Links zum Wochenende am 20.03.2009 » t3n Magazin

Die t3n-Links zum Wochenende am 20.03.2009 » t3n Magazin — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:16:53 +0000

[...] Das Startup uTest sucht für Unternehmen nach Software-Bugs. Um die Wichtigkeit dieser Arbeit zu verdeutlichen hat man die Social Networks Facebook, MySpace und LinkedIn auf ihre Fehler hin testen lassen. Einen Sieger gibt es unter den Social Networks nicht, denn alle hatten weit über 200 Bugs. Gewonnen haben nur die Tester, die die meisten Bugs gefunden haben. Gesehen bei TechCrunch. [...]

By: iPhone 3.0, eBook printing, Chrome experiments, and more tidbits - Emerging Tech Testing Blog -

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:23:06 +0000

[...] stunt to determine who has the buggiest social networking site. Pretty interesting stats in the post on ZDnNet and the publicity angle sure [...]

By: E. David Zotter

E. David Zotter — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:29:00 +0000

I disagree. The results mean quite a bit.

Even large sites with gazillions of dollars and masses of people STILL have bugs.

uTest was able to identify key problems quickly and on the cheap.

Krgrds,
E. David Zotter

By: E. David Zotter

E. David Zotter — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:27:11 +0000

I really enjoyed the results…

It just goes to show that even the big sites with millions of dollars of VC can still have a huge amount of unrealized bugs in their production software.

Sure sure, the various social websites all have different features and functionality. However, these are all in the top 5, so I’d expect a higher level of software design.

From a marketing perspective, it is a smart demonstration of uTests’s service for easily and quickly identifying bugs on the cheap.
Clearly they caught things that small armies of people within Facebook/LinkedIn/Myspace missed.

Sometimes the best way involves brute force!

Krgrds,
E. David Zotter

By: Feed Review #7 « Scoprendo il Web 2.0

Feed Review #7 « Scoprendo il Web 2.0 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:53:38 +0000

[...] Qual è il social network con più bug? [...]

By: goit

goit — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:11:54 +0000

I agree with the idea that comparing the three web sites doesn’t seem to have common ground. But I see the advantage of making testing open for the public.

If this model is picked up by big players, then the job of QA/software testers becomes in danger.

By: Robert Wierzbicki

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:40:05 +0000

Good to know! I’ve seen approved bugs where IMHO they did not match what they should be and they were approved, therefore I figured it was not possible.

By: RW

RW — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:37:48 +0000

Good to know, I’ve seen approved bugs where I thought the severity was silly so I thought that maybe it was not changeable!

By: links for 2009-03-17 « Brent Sordyl’s Blog

links for 2009-03-17 « Brent Sordyl’s Blog — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:04:19 +0000

[...] uTest Bug Battle: Which Social Network Is The Buggiest? Facebook: 416 uTesters found 243 bugs (.58 bugs/tester), including 14.40% that were deemed showstoppers by the tester (tags: testing facebook crowdsourcing) [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:56:59 +0000

I like http://UserFix.com concept for reporting bugs and requesting features to any social network or site.

By: w poszukiwaniu najbardziej dziurawej społecznościówki | webthink

w poszukiwaniu najbardziej dziurawej społecznościówki | webthink — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:57:56 +0000

[...] Maciej Płoński | 17 marca 2009 | Kategorie: Internet Przeczytałem przed chwilą na TechCrunchu dosyć interesujący wpis o poczynaniach serwisu uTest, którego celem jest testowanie [...]

By: sludgequack

sludgequack — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:53:29 +0000

while it’s frustrating to hear that ANY users may have had a difficult experience using these products, this study is fundamentally flawed. why? because LinkedIn operates in an entirely different business space and relies on a totally decoupled set of activities than MySpace or Facebook. Since the site is about showing the best PROFESSIONAL NETWORKING face to the outside world and not about bringing users original content, the success criteria is a bit skewed in LinkedIn’s favor. It’s a long discussion, but essentially, the inclusion of LinkedIn totally undermines any credibility of the test results. It’s as if they included Craigslist and Amazon in the study!

By: Matt Johnston

Matt Johnston — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:40:24 +0000

Actually, while the tester initially specifies the severity of each bug, it’s the customer who sets the final severity, and makes the approve/reject decision for any bug. This is what establishes the price for each approved bug.

By: Nav

Nav — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:55:43 +0000

Get a life….

By: Robert Wierzbicki

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:27:10 +0000

In uTest the tester chooses the severity of the bug posted. The higher the severity the more you get paid. I don’t think they even have the ability to lower the severity if they don’t agree.

By: test

test — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:21:39 +0000

what a joke, they get people in cheap to QA web products. stupid folks man wonder who have time to QA for $1 – $5 HOPE

ha ha

By: Zachary Collins

Zachary Collins — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:12:05 +0000

You notice that MySpace is 3rd in all 3 of the polls. I never liked MySpace from the begining.

By: Justyn

Justyn — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:56:23 +0000

I’m not sure how anyone can claim this to be worthless without knowing which bugs were uncovered? It looks like there was decent QA for the contest (accuracy, severity, etc.) and the feedback was sent to each site. This could be an awesome tool for the social networks themselves – an opportunity to improve.

I like the concept of uTest and if they make the web more usable, I’m all for it. Yes, they happened to be reporting bugs on 3 of the largest social sites, 2 of which compete heavily with one pulling away strongly – but so what? How does that make this any less valuable? Great PR move for uTest.

By: Tien Nguyen

Tien Nguyen — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:40:07 +0000

Um…yeah, completely worthless. Basically it’s a matter of “OH LET’S GET THE MOST POPULAR THINGS ON THE INTERWEB TOGETHER AND COMPARE THEM AND SEE WHAT PEOPLE MAKE IT OF IT AND THAT’LL SURELY GET US FAME!”

By: mp

mp — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:27:28 +0000

umm…. friendster!

By: Jim Z

Jim Z — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:16:17 +0000

These results mean nothing! Here is why:

1. This was essentially nothing more than a contest to determine who can find the most and worst bugs. Biases are guaranteed and overstatement of the severity of a bug is most definitely assured when money is on the table.
2. This is truly unfair testing. How can someone compare Facebook (and its huge applications platform) with LinkedIn and their small (compare to Facebook) feature set. Upon starting to read the article, I already knew what the results were.

Seriously, do we need a company like that to tell us that software is buggy. To be honest, I am very surprised that only around 250 bugs were found per network. I am actually surprise that LinkedIn has that many considering their feature set. I would have thought that Facebook and MySpace have many more when considering all the different browsers, clients, applications, media, and content that exists on these sites.

The other thing that is unclear is what were the limitations on the testing? For example, were testers of facebook allowed to report bugs of 3rd party applications?

The whole thing just does not sound right.

Just my 2 cents…