I like reading staff distributed by uTest. They distribute interesting stuff, as a rule. I like uTest’s Software Testing Blog. That is why I read Google in the Wild Case Study when uTest emailed link to it today. The article appeared to be total disappointment. Here are 5 things I especially didn’t like.
5. Vocabulary: defect. Article uses per-defect cost term. We know better than to use d-word in situations that don’t call for it:
4. Vocabulary: sure thing. I am not sure sure is a right word to use when talking about testing:
How do you ensure that the content you deliver to your customers meets their needs regardless of how and where they access your product?
Ensure that Google has appropriate test coverage for countless situations.
Traditional test cycles and traditional test outsourcing are simply not sufficient to ensure that …
3. No hard data. When you publish something for people who are not in the same context as yours, those people expect you to provide some justification of what you say.
2. It is an advertisement. Research assumes some application of scientific methods. Advertisement is happy merely using buzzwords. There is no scent of science in the report.
1. Price. Forrester initially priced the article for $499. I know there is nothing for free. You paid with your time for reading this post, for example. But $499 for such shallow staff is way too much for my liking.
If you have some bucks to spare on reading and a free hour I suggest you buy Becoming a technical leader by Gerald M. Weinberg. I read it today, it’s great. Wait, you still have $489 left? Yeah, let all problems be that tough!