Lessons learned from bountying bugs
daemonology.net
daemonology.net
When browsing open source code, I often refrain from reporting small mistakes (e.g. spelling errors), fearing it would "waste" the time of the maintainers for "superficial" problems... I also don't want them to think I'm criticizing their code / spelling.
I think even small errors are important (broken window theory). By explicitly encouraging such reports, you encourage people to read your code, but you also let people know it's okay to "bother" you with these small errors.
People who report bugs usually care more about feeling respected than getting every possible dollar from you. ... I awarded two very similar bugs from the same reporter $10 and $50 respectively
Where does this assertion about respect come from? How do you know this? Did people come out and say it? Did their interest in continuing to look for bugs rise, fall, or stay the same as a result of the consistent explanations? Do you have actual quotes from the reporters?
I was just curious if this is speculation because it is very easy for us to make the fallacy of assuming someone else thinks the way we do, that their reason for doing something would be the same as what we think would be the reason. I want to believe the assertion, but since it is a generalization, I am skeptical.
Of course, it won't be true of everybody.
Dan Pink is at the forefront of demystifying motivation. When you have time, check out this TED Video, it's very insightful - http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html. TL;DW - Cash incentives alone make people slow and stupid for cognitive tasks.
Yep. I would have named you, but I don't like doing that without asking permission first and I didn't know that I was going to mention the $10/$50 bit until I was halfway through writing that blog post.
Thanks! It's great to hear comments like this -- I think my code is clean and understandable, but I know that most people say the same thing about their own code, so having someone else say this is very gratifying.