| ▲ | remus a day ago | |||||||
For me the idea that poor quality search results are a bug muddies the idea of what a bug is. It's like saying the colour of the paint in my living room is buggy because I don't like it. It might be an ugly colour that I don't like, but it is what it is. A bug would be if the colour doesn't match what was shown on the tin. > If the search bears little connection to what was searched for, then it is a bug, as far as the user is concerned. A bad product perhaps, but not a bug. | ||||||||
| ▲ | 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
| [deleted] | ||||||||
| ▲ | pixl97 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
That's because as computer people we're very invested in the idea of bugs, while your users are not. In products your users are stuck with it doesn't matter much, they'll have to suffer with what they think are bugs. In products that users can switch easily, you can get dropped for a product that you would consider crappier if the user believes it's less 'buggy'. | ||||||||
| ▲ | prmph 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
So if I search for A, and I get results for B instead (where B has only the slightest connection to A), it is not a bug? What about if B has no connection to A whatsoever? Still not a bug? If it is not, then we may have discovered a software domain (the first for me I should say) where bugs are not possible. Should a be a nice market to launch products for, then. | ||||||||
| ||||||||