Originally posted by blaslo
I'm not an engineer myself, but I've worked for Internet/technical companies my entire life, and every one I have worked for has always required more than one example of an issue. They need to show that the issue is reproducible in order to fix it. Why is it that way? I don't have any idea, LOL. But, it's not unusual or an especially "not user-friendly policy", it's just the way it is.
And, as a note, I totally understand the frustration in seeing apparent bugs not getting fixed, or reoccurring, or new bugs popping up. There have been statements along the lines of "this one has been around for several seasons" and "the new bugs system doesn't seem to be working very well". I've been a player since the beginning of season two, and the reason I wanted to become a bugs moderator is to hopefully make the game better. Please remember, this new system has barely been around a month. I think that all that any of us are asking is, give it some time. We have no control over a bug that may have existed prior to the new system, or been around for multiple seasons. I've seen a lot of issues resolved just since I started, and I've seen and received a number of happy messages thanking for the help.
Now, to hopefully get things back on track, I would agree that based on the one replay, we would need some more examples. The Corner also goes towards the inside of the line. It almost looks like everybody is reading off of the fullback, who moves up into the line. Was this a insider Rush? It looks like the penetration from the nose tackle might have made the halfback read that he had to go outside?
Thank you for being the only Mod in here to just treat my like a person instead of a troll and try answer a simple question in a professional manor. I truly appreciate it. Since I seem to have someone who realizes I really just want an answer and I'm not trying to harass anybody, can I point something out.
There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding that I'm asking why you need multiple examples to fix the problem. Not the case. I want to know why we can't go ahead and say it is a bug, but we need more examples to fix it?
Aside from that, you are right about it being standard to need multiple examples to fix a bug. I don't think it's standard at all to rely on the users to provide them all. I just have the belief that GLB profits from the game. Once it knows it has a probable bug. Sometimes this can be determined in viewing one play. Then it should employ someone to find more examples of this. It would be nice if it provided a little more sophisticated test server to more easily determine what these problems are.
At the same time I complain about quality as a consumer in general. Compare a a car built in the late 60's with a car built today. The ones today are like tonka toys, they don't last. Quality is not a big priority for the vast majority of businesses. I understand. I understand Bort & DD have business decisions to make and they may not be able to hire this amount of people or be able to purchase the technology needed to have a better test server. But something has to be said about the problem with the Bugs forum. And regardless of whether it is the status quo or not in the industry, does not mean it's a user-friendly policy. Perhaps the industry is not very user-friendly oriented. I think most consumers would agree with me. Where else would we appropriately get any attention to this issue.
But this is definitely on point and on track. If thread states we need multiple examples. Then it is on point and topic to argue that we do not need them to to admit it is a bug. Again not fix it just admit it.
But in essence aside from all my opinions, I really just want an answer to a simple question...
...Why do we need more than one example to determine it's a bug? Again it has been misread that I want to know why we need multiple examples to fix a bug. But I am asking why we need them to determine it's a bug.
I'm not an engineer myself, but I've worked for Internet/technical companies my entire life, and every one I have worked for has always required more than one example of an issue. They need to show that the issue is reproducible in order to fix it. Why is it that way? I don't have any idea, LOL. But, it's not unusual or an especially "not user-friendly policy", it's just the way it is.
And, as a note, I totally understand the frustration in seeing apparent bugs not getting fixed, or reoccurring, or new bugs popping up. There have been statements along the lines of "this one has been around for several seasons" and "the new bugs system doesn't seem to be working very well". I've been a player since the beginning of season two, and the reason I wanted to become a bugs moderator is to hopefully make the game better. Please remember, this new system has barely been around a month. I think that all that any of us are asking is, give it some time. We have no control over a bug that may have existed prior to the new system, or been around for multiple seasons. I've seen a lot of issues resolved just since I started, and I've seen and received a number of happy messages thanking for the help.
Now, to hopefully get things back on track, I would agree that based on the one replay, we would need some more examples. The Corner also goes towards the inside of the line. It almost looks like everybody is reading off of the fullback, who moves up into the line. Was this a insider Rush? It looks like the penetration from the nose tackle might have made the halfback read that he had to go outside?
Thank you for being the only Mod in here to just treat my like a person instead of a troll and try answer a simple question in a professional manor. I truly appreciate it. Since I seem to have someone who realizes I really just want an answer and I'm not trying to harass anybody, can I point something out.
There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding that I'm asking why you need multiple examples to fix the problem. Not the case. I want to know why we can't go ahead and say it is a bug, but we need more examples to fix it?
Aside from that, you are right about it being standard to need multiple examples to fix a bug. I don't think it's standard at all to rely on the users to provide them all. I just have the belief that GLB profits from the game. Once it knows it has a probable bug. Sometimes this can be determined in viewing one play. Then it should employ someone to find more examples of this. It would be nice if it provided a little more sophisticated test server to more easily determine what these problems are.
At the same time I complain about quality as a consumer in general. Compare a a car built in the late 60's with a car built today. The ones today are like tonka toys, they don't last. Quality is not a big priority for the vast majority of businesses. I understand. I understand Bort & DD have business decisions to make and they may not be able to hire this amount of people or be able to purchase the technology needed to have a better test server. But something has to be said about the problem with the Bugs forum. And regardless of whether it is the status quo or not in the industry, does not mean it's a user-friendly policy. Perhaps the industry is not very user-friendly oriented. I think most consumers would agree with me. Where else would we appropriately get any attention to this issue.
But this is definitely on point and on track. If thread states we need multiple examples. Then it is on point and topic to argue that we do not need them to to admit it is a bug. Again not fix it just admit it.
But in essence aside from all my opinions, I really just want an answer to a simple question...
...Why do we need more than one example to determine it's a bug? Again it has been misread that I want to know why we need multiple examples to fix a bug. But I am asking why we need them to determine it's a bug.
