Crowdsourced Testing – Take 2

Last year we had a stab at Flash Mob Testing – which was bringing the crowd of the Software Testing Club to test some websites for money.

Whilst the experiments we did went well, I wasn’t comfortable with the ‘offering’.  It all felt too complex.

The term Flash Mob Testing implied that there had to be a ‘mob’ when in fact quite often people just need a single tester to help out.  Some people also commented on how using ‘Flash’ in the name made them think it was something to do with Flash software.

So, we’ve taken the experiments we did and have re-thought our approach.

The focus has to be on making testing easy. So we’ve simplified things into two offerings.

  1. Remote Testing – a simple per hour fee for testing software that can be tested remotely
  2. Consultants Database – only a couple of us there at the moment, but the idea is that we can develop a directory of Freelance/Consultant Testers where companies can get in touch directly.  We are saying that we will be ‘socially and professionally’ approving people. It’s all about quality for us at the end of the day.  The process of socially approving people is not a clearly defined activity, but in a nutshell you will need to give us the confidence that you are pretty darn good at what you do. (We won’t be doing keyword scanning through your CV!)

We’ve called the service ‘The Crowd‘.  It has a super hero theme developing because we are here to save the day…!

There should be some projects coming up soonish. Stay tuned.

You might be interested in... The Dojo

Dojo Adverts-05

3 Responses to “Crowdsourced Testing – Take 2”

  1. GarethMarch 18, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    Is this the same idea as uTest ?

  2. Rosie SherryMarch 18, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    Hi Gareth,

    I would say it’s similar, but not quite the same. The idea of having a ‘crowd’ to do something (in this case testing) is the same.

    The core difference for me is that it has a different approach as we are basically trying to support the testing community by bringing them different opportunities of work. Some of the work we will source, but we are equally as keen to put testers in touch with companies direct (by having the consultants directory).

    We are aiming for quality over quantity of testers and really looking to deepen our relationships with testers to see how we can help them find work and progress the industry.

    We are also keen to pay testers for the work they do on a per hour basis rather than the PayPerBug model.

  3. GarethMarch 19, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    Thanks for the follow up, Rosie, and good luck with this. I especially like the pay-per-hour as opposed to per-bug idea, having spent years in the QA field trying to convince managers that you can’t evaluate testers by the number of bugs they submit.