From Bug Tallies to User Pain: A Shift in QA Thinking

For a long time, I thought tracking the number of open bugs would give me a sense of product quality. It felt logical — fewer bugs should mean a better product, right?

But recently, I realized: I was measuring the wrong thing.

Open bug count tells me how many issues are logged (some of them not even triaged to be confirmed as actual bug), but not how painful they are. It doesn’t tell me whether users are frustrated or stuck or unable to fully utilize a feature. It doesn’t capture whether the product feels smooth, trustworthy, or delightful. And it certainly doesn’t tell me what struggles people face silently — the things they never report.

The number of bugs we track is shaped by what we choose to report, how strict our definitions are, and how disciplined we are in filing them. It’s more of a reflection of our internal process than of our users’ experience.

So I’m stepping away from using open bug count as a key quality metric.

I don’t have the full answer yet about what I’ll track instead. But I want my next metrics to be grounded in:

• User pain rather than internal numbers
• Impact rather than volume
• Experience rather than just execution

This isn’t just about better metrics — it’s about building a better feedback loop between our users, our team, and the work we choose to prioritize.

If you’re in QA or product, I’d love to hear: What have you found to be a better signal of product quality than bug count?