New
#300
Well said, John!Ok, while I am not pointing any fingers at anyone (except maybe myself), I have to point out the incongruity here.
Testers should scientifically be testing these builds, but subjectively feel unappreciated without explanations.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Mind you, I agreed that testing should be thorough and scientific. But, personally, I don't give a ... rodent's derriere about explanations, nor about appreciation. All I want to see are bugs being quashed.
However, I concede that those that 'feel' underappreciated are probably more likely to be the same ones who aren't testing very scientifically (or systematically, for that matter).
In all the ßeta testing I have been involved in over the years, I, personally, can unequivocally say that I derived my sense of satisfaction, not from being told anything, but by seeing the product I was testing become a better product due to the testing conducted by the testers.
Granted, as with any venture, there were 1 or 2 (or a relative few in large scale tests) who were glory hound, who wanted some sort of recognition, but by and large, the vast majority of people I met were not testing to get recognition, but testing to help developers release a better product.