When the outside company that's testing your new site comes back with 10 problems:

2x are real issue
1x suggested wording change
2x them using bad data
2x are things that don't, shouldn't, and never existed on the site
3x can't be reproduced by anyone, including them

I'm thinking we way overpaid

The last one is a concern, isn't it? Nasty bugs that keep lurking and lurking

@asgs if it wasn't for second to last one, I'd think that maybe the last one actually was a concern. They reported that a link took them somewhere unexpected, when not only did the link never exist, but the entire section they're taking about it being in never existed. At this point, I've got no faith in anything they come back with.

@RevThwack don't they capture screenshots, video recordings, logs, Nonces, etc, to do post mortem? If not, it is as good as amateur junior QE level testing

@asgs only thing they capture are the notes...

There's even a fun little bug related to logging in with different credentials after a timeout, just to see if they would catch it... Nope.

That's what happens when you use metrics to measure performance. Their goal is to raise as many tickets as possible. They don't care if they're actually being helpful