After shipping a few SaaS products, I noticed a pattern: Bugs? Yes. Bug reports? No.
Not because users didn’t care but because reporting bugs is usually a terrible experience.
Most tools want users to:
* Fill out a long form
* Enter their email
* Describe a bug they barely understand
* Maybe sign in or create an account
* Then maybe submit it
Let’s be real: no one’s doing that. Especially not someone just trying to use your product.
So I built Bugdrop.app - It’s a little draggable bug icon that users can drop right on the issue, type a quick note, and they’re done. No logins. No forms. Just context-rich feedback that your team can actually use — with screenshots, browser info, even console logs if they hit an error.
And weirdly? People actually use it. Even non-technical users click it just because "the little bug looked fun."
I didn’t want to build another "feedback suite". I just wanted something lightweight, fast, and so stupidly simple that people actually report stuff. If you've ever had a user say “something’s broken” and then ghost you forever, you probably get where I’m coming from.
What I’m most proud of? People are actually using it. And their users? They’re actually reporting stuff. Even non-technical ones.
Would love to hear if you’ve faced similar problems, and if this feels like something that would’ve helped in your own projects. Not trying to sell you anything — just sharing something I built to scratch my own itch.
Doing decent bug reports as a user most of the time it feels like following the turnip truck to town picking up turnips that fell off the truck, giving them to the farmer, but knowing they will likely be thrown in the trash because they didn't care about them to start with. If they did they would have made sure to not overload the truck to start with and not be obviously dropping so many turnips on the side of the road and leaving them there.
It’s so important to treat companies individually instead of just according to some blanket impression of the world. Individual treatment means good companies benefit and grow, while blanket treatment actually actively rewards bad behavior: a company that invests in quality will bear the cost while you share the benefit with the competition, while a company that treats you worse will reap the savings while you take out your frustration on the competition, too.
I know someone else who has called Apple’s support line and spoken with engineers on bugs that were uncovered. He then got follow up emails to install the latest macOS update as it contained a fix to the bug he stumbled across.
One of the few issues I’ve reported to them was promptly responded to and fixed, but that was probably because it had privacy implications.
Yep. That has always been the general industry sentiment [1]:
> Here’s another bug that’s not worth fixing: if you have a bug that totally crashes your program when you open gigantic files, but it only happens to your single user who has OS/2 and who, for all you know, doesn’t even use large files. Well, don’t fix it. Worse things have happened at sea. Similarly I’ve generally given up caring about people with 16 color screens or people running off-the-shelf Windows 95 with no upgrades in 7 years. People like that don’t spend much money on packaged software products.
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/07/31/hard-assed-bug-fix...
>But mostly, it’s worth fixing bugs. Even if they are “harmless” bugs, they may reduce the reputation of your company and your product, which, in the long run, will have a significant impact on your earnings. It’s hard to overcome the reputation of having a buggy product.
I think I've reported bugs to Bloomz (the awful communication app my school uses), jpmonette/feed (the node/typescript RSS feed generation library), and I think at one point I reported one to Newsblur, and they all got fixed.
I submitted a bug report on Things To Get Me (an Amazon wishlist alternative) on a holiday weekend, fully not expecting to hear anything until at least Monday. It wasn’t anything too major. Within the hour I not only had a response, but a change was pushed to prod after a little back and forth with the developer.
A couple years ago I signed up for write.as and the founder/ceo reached out to have video chat just to see how things were going or if there was anything I’d want to see in the future.
Now the linux-industrial complex is a special case, if you are a software engineer and know how to isolate a problem and submit a great bug report you will often hear from people who will say you sent them the best bug report all quarter. It helps if the team is working with web tech, younger, more diverse, and never heard of the GPL.
But with volunteer-driven FOSS projects, what you want as an end user is much, much lower on the list of priorities compared to a business product. Even if you have implemented the "fix" [1] yourself, they might still not accept it unless you're willing to stay around and maintain it yourself. And that's perfectly fine.
[1] Assuming that the maintainers agree that it's a bug and not a feature request in disguise.
This one sounds so specific that I suspect you must have a reference to a bug tracker or a mailing list message somewhere. Do you? Having the context of the whole interaction is helpful when forming conclusions.
Without the benefit of such context, I'd suppose that the effort of reproducing the bug (not everyone has a Windows machine handy; the X11 server might be commercial or obscure) is a petty good reason for not giving it more attention.
The UI has the best productivity-focused design I've ever seen in any GUI application. And its a game. Absolutely incredible.
As a submitter, you can decide to invest in someone's detailed bug report form, including attaching screenshots, etc., maybe taking an hour or more, and derailing the work mental mode you were in.
After that work, what you learn most likely happens next is one of the following:
* Silence.
* "Yes, that's a problem." Then silence.
* 6 months later, automated email saying that this bug is automatically closed, due to inactivity.
* 2 years later, automated email that they've done a new release, so they've decided to throw away all open bug reports. But if you still find the bug in the new version, you can file a new bug report, they graciously offer.
* "We know about that bug, but we aren't going to fix it." For reasons you don't understand. And if there's a cultural mismatch, the tone can come across as hostile or disingenuous, besides.
* "This is a duplicate of bug X." It is not.
* Closes the bug report suspiciously, perhaps for optics or metrics.
* (Silence FAANG Special Edition: A high-profile bug report, on which tens or hundreds of knowledgeable people are adding on, for years, all saying this bug is a huge problem, and many asking in the bug report comments why is nobody from the FAANG even acknowledging this bug report in their own bug system.)
Suggested practice: If you ask others to invest in reporting bugs (by having that bug report form there), then follow through in good faith on the bug reports you receive. (At least on the bug reports that seemed reasonable, and that invested effort in your process.)
The number of times I’d google my problem and find a ticket from 6+ years ago with dozens of users participating in the comments, confirming it’s a consistent, common problem, and not a peep from their devs.
It’s like their public issue tracker only exists to insult their users.
I agree that reporting bugs can be hard, but the amount of spam that follows an effective open form, of craziness to uselessness, outweighs the useful bug reports.
Having two types of reports: one which is a simple screenshot taker with the ability to draw a circle over what is wrong, and one which is a more detailed report, would be useful.
Some LLM that filters out what is a useless report be a useful report would be good, too.
In comparison to _paid_ software testing, which doesn't change the point at all: if they were paid to find bugs, they wouldn't be paid for useless and unactionable reports.
>you’re complaining that listening to your users is hard
Sometimes - and I'd wager most of the time - they are, yes, unless your product solely attracts technically competent and advanced users that can attempt to understand/reason about what is causing the issue.
That's entirely the wrong take, IMO.
Listening to users is easy, but the users often don't say anything when they speak. Those non-reports are basically spam that should be automatically thrown away.
Making simple, useless bug reports is easy and it will always be the easiest. Also the "my neighbour spies for the government" types will anyway always be the most motivated ones. There is no way to make it hard for "bad" reports without making it harder also for useful reports (barring some obvious cases of bots, ip filters etc, which are not what is discussed here and are a general problem not just for bug feedback). By trying to reduce the noise, you also reduce the signal thus get a worse SNR.
The specific tool is smart in trying to increase the signal. If you make it easier for users to add some useful context, MAYBE you get more users actually giving you sth useful, maybe even users who otherwise would not bother to add anything more useful than "it does not work".
I use software that recently made much simpler to make bug reports and add context, and they say they actually receive much better bug reports after. And most importantly, the users actually see that the bugs get fixed, which motivate them to make more, and more detailed, bug reports. Imo getting bugs fixed (and maybe even recognise the users' contribution in reporting them) is the best way to get good bug reports. Honestly, from my user's perspective having my feedback taken seriously is the best motivation for me to continue submitting reports. Because, honestly, sometimes bugs come up in complex situations that may be tricky to understand/reproduce, and it is hard to understand what context is relevant. I am not usually motivated as a user to spend like 20 minutes figuring out exactly how to reproduce a bug, but if I see that the company/engineers actually care and try to make it easy to me to report to them, I may actually do it.
Yes you are gonna have bad interactions also (and remember people have their own jobs/lives/not enough time to always engage with you the way you may want them to in providing feedback), but the point is to increase the good/useful interactions (compared to them), not decrease interactions in general. Unless you do not care much about bug reports anyway, that's also fine.
This so much.
I can't tell you how often I've seen someone trying to get tech support on something say "When I load the program, I get an error" but don't even say what the error says. I understand that most people have never worked a QA job and so don't know how to write a good bug report, but certainly I would expect someone to copy/paste the error message.
If you're talking about non-technical users, they (a) don't even think of copying the error message, (b) don't know how to copy the error message, and (if the error message isn't directly copyable) (c) have no idea how to do a screenshot.
You're lucky if they even say that. Many public bug trackers I've seen are just filled with spam, entitlement and anger, demands/threats, or incoherent fever dreams of very unwell people. Forget about getting logs or reproduction steps. When you open bug tracking up to the public, you're lucky if what you get back is even remotely serious.
It's weird seeing people without computer familiarity using one, it feels like they are blind, they click in a button with a label and a icon, and when you ask todo it again they can't find it(even when you literally tell them the button name), it feels like their vision FOV is limited to a few centimeters, like those horror games flashlight lol, it's my own experience, but yeah, they aren't going to remember the error, or don't even read it, imagine print screen it before clicking "ok"
I however wouldn't shorten/transform reports with an LLM, or make spammy reports inaccessible. Just doing the semantic grouping for escalation. It's true you're getting free work from your users, and the human factor is pretty important here, even if an LLM might sometimes misinterpret it.
Deleted Comment
It cuts both ways. Guess what's one of the most popular format for apps and webpages to report failures to the user?
"Oops. Something went wrong."
Not exactly overflowing with useful information, either.
Sure, the system is probably logging the fault internally, and is always collecting metrics that help with contextualization later. But the system and its owner aren't usually the ones most affected by any given bug - it's the user who is. The user who's now worrying whether it means they're about to lose the time and work they put in the current session, or whether the app just ate their money (failures half-way through payment processes are the cutest, aren't they?). They don't know - maybe the "Oops!" was just benign, or irrelevant. Then again, maybe they've already lost it all 10 minutes ago - back when the previous "Oops!" briefly flashed to gently inform them that the service's back-end tripped over itself and died - but they won't discover that until later, at which point they'll be neither able nor willing to make a proper bug report.
Point being, if one sees their users as being 5 years old (but with parents' credit card in hands), one shouldn't be surprised to only ever get a kindergarten-level error reports like the ones you mentioned[0].
This is not just me complaining on a tangential issue - I believe showing specific and accurate error messages improves the ratio of useful error reports. It's not a full solution, but it's a step in the right direction. Treating them as partners, instead of a bunch of brats you have to put up with until they complete the payment, makes them more willing to reciprocate; giving users means to contextualize their experience allows some of them[1] to understand what's going on, and gives them something useful to put in the report too.
That, or I guess nowadays you can also keep the "Oops."-es, double-down on telemetry, and feed the metrics to a SOTA LLM to identify and interpret failures for your engineering/operations team, which we all know has neither time nor patience to do it.
--
[0] - "Page doesn't work" is the adult version of a kid suddenly starting to cry for unclear and possibly non-specific reason.
[1] - Obviously, not all, or even most. Software is complex, most users still behave as if half-drunk and unable to read, etc. Still, even 5 year olds can comprehend basic words and identify patterns. Figuring out that "could not connect to payment gateway" is serious, that "failed to write [blah blah tech terms]" that happens at random is probably not, etc. is within the cognitive reach of most users.
Yes, I love it. How helpful! I'm so lucky to have such a meaningful error message to Google. Now I only have to blindly try a list of 50 possible fixes before I discover that I couldn't save a replay on my XBox One because the disk was full.
Naturally, the stock counterpoint is that this happened because users thought real error messages were too scawy! :(
Counter-counterpoint: Oh well
Some of this is because one of the worst bug-related metrics is “customer found bugs.” This means that your developers missed it during unit testing and your test team missed it during system and final testing. Nobody actually wants customers to be able to file bug reports because they make the team look bad.
As a consumer who reports bugs, I’d actually say the opposite problem is just as common — when the company ghosts you after you’ve taken the time to report an issue.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve used the official channels — bug trackers, support forums, contact forms — only to hear nothing back. No acknowledgement, no follow-up, no notification when it’s fixed. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever had a company let me know that a bug I reported was resolved.
Reporting a bug to most companies feels like sending a wishlist to Santa. That’s why many people don’t bother. They assume it’s a waste of time — and most of the time, they’re right.
Personally, if a company fails to engage over a bug report, I don’t waste my time reporting anything else. In many cases, I just move to the competition. I’m sure I’m not alone.
If a user goes to the time of helping you fix your software, the least you can do is spend some time on them.
For every user who reports a clear, reproducible defect, there 10 others who report non-reproducible issues, who conflate features with bugs, who ghost, who use issues for support or questions, who are just angry about something and think you're an idiot, who report (since fixed) defects against old versions, or who report duplicates to existing issues. It's a very noisy channel.
It can lead to a crappy outcome for both the reporter who earnestly tried to help and for the developer who wishes they had the time to carefully address every reported issue but just don't.
Sometimes, all that's feasible is making time to triage/acknowledge each issue in a reasonable timeframe and to be forthright about its prioritization.
As an aside, I find your opinion that "if I give you my time in the form of a bug report, the least you can do is give me your time" to be common. We rarely have the right to demand another person's attention, though. Especially with respect to non-commercial open source hobbyist maintainers.
The solution to that is to have an additional triaging capacity. That can come from the community if you empower them with e.g. a public bug tracker.
If you truly do not have enough capacity to even fix the valid bugs then you have much bigger problems and no change to the bug reporting mechanisms will help you.
> As an aside, I find your opinion that "if I give you my time in the form of a bug report, the least you can do is give me your time" to be common. We rarely have the right to demand another person's attention, though. Especially with respect to non-commercial open source hobbyist maintainers.
This discussion is in the context of a post about a getting users to report bugs. Users might not be entitled to a response to their bug reports just because they spent their time but you sure as hell are not entitled to users telling you about issues encountered with your software before they inevitably get fed up and move to an alternative. The point is that if users feel they are wasting their time they won't bother - and the first to go will be the high-effort bug reports with useful information.
And this isn't really different for open source hobby projects - as long as you care about improving your software you'd do well to not make users who are willing to make good bug reports feel unwelcome.
If I file a bug I get either:
1) nothing
2) a reasonable response that may or may not include resolution
3) a shared debugging journey that takes three hours of my life
Number 3 devs mean well and have admirable commitment…but I’d rather not sign up for an epic trek to throw a ring into mountain doom. I just want to point out an issue and provide some basic info.
So these days the only thing I do for the most part is send crash logs.
They had a public facing jira open, where people could file bugs and what not about the viewer (the client) and the world (the server).
You didn't need some special account or something like that, just your normal Second Life account was enough to get access to that one.
Drawback was, you were able to see what happens when filing bugs is easy. Of course, many people used it to file real bugs but also complained about stuff not working like they expected (or how it should work according to them, which brought other people up against them and so on...in the end you were able to read the latest drama here and there, right in the jira entries).
Although, to be honest, i thought it was an awesome idea, but you when you open up an easy way for people to report bugs, you need an easy way to explain what bugs are and what not. :)