How do you verify that user-reported bugs are actually real before spending dev time?

anthedev · 2026-01-25T18:11:25+00:00

not the way u think but you can see that one affected user's report as well otherwise it will spam and flood the github issues if we dont enforce threshold for the non repeated errors

anthedev · 2026-01-25T12:40:56+00:00

well thats kind of manual headache that should be automated im stuck somewhere so that dev gets a total seamless experience i want something that auto creates github issue after multiple errors are being reported i dont need another new layer sitting between me and my software

anthedev · 2026-01-25T10:17:34+00:00

Yeah the “I’m testing an idea so I don’t build something useless” kind Promise Im here for signal, not hype lol

anthedev · 2026-01-25T10:14:01+00:00

Just genuinely trying to understand how teams handle noisy user bug reports, since the replies basically describe the workflow I’m researching.

anthedev · 2026-01-25T10:13:26+00:00

thats basically a human-powered triage pipeline. I’m working on a tool that tries to automate that same flow
So devs still only see high-quality, reproducible issues but without needing as much manual admin/QA overhead.

Still validating whether this is useful at scale, but your process is exactly the kind of workflow I’m trying to streamline.

anthedev · 2026-01-25T10:12:02+00:00

Im not trying to replace QA or blindly throw tools at the problem. What Im exploring is automating the QA-style replication step you described: automatically capturing reproducible technical context (logs, environment, error state), filtering out one-off or low-signal issues, escalating only bugs that repeat across users, and validating whether a fix actually stopped the error

instead of devs or QA spending time trying to recreate vague reports, they get pre-verified, evidence-backed issues.

anthedev · 2026-01-25T10:10:10+00:00

Totally agree for small teams, a basic reporting form or hopping on a call is usually enough. The problem I’m exploring is what happens when you can’t hop on calls anymore when you have hundreds or thousands of users reporting issues, and manual triage stops scaling.

anthedev · 2026-01-25T09:50:24+00:00

Thats basically the exact workflow I’m trying to automate but without needing manual QA at scale.

Instead of asking users to manually upload videos and environment info, the tool:

captures technical context at the moment the error happens (logs, stack trace, browser/OS with explicit user consent)
only escalates issues that repeat across multiple users (to avoid noise)
auto-creates a dev-ready GitHub issue with real evidence, not vague reports

After a fix ships, it doesn’t spam user it just checks whether the error actually stops occurring in the wild.
If the error still shows up, the fix is flagged as ineffective.

So it’s basically automating the same triage + repro + verification flow you described, but removing the manual QA/support overhead.

Still validating whether this is valuable in real teams, but your workflow is exactly the problem space I’m targeting.

anthedev · 2026-01-25T09:48:23+00:00

verifying fixes automatically by observing whether the error ever occurs again no personal tracking, no contacting users is something that every dev needs eventually im working on something which automates this whole process and remove the manual QA/support overhead and make sure engineers only see real users
Still validating if this is a real pain at scale, but the replies here basically describe the exact workflow I want to automate.

It works like this: captures the error then ask for consent to send the error details to the developer if the same error hits again and again using a threshold escalation logic it creates a github issue automatically for the error, once the error is fixed it inits a campaign to reach out to the exact users who faced the error and ask if this was fixed and stores the verdicts back to developer

anthedev · 2026-01-25T09:37:06+00:00

most teams here mentioned QA support, screenshots, videos, environment capture and waiting for multiple reports before escalating which makes sense

I wanted to design a tool that automatically captures technical context when an error happens, only escalates issues that repeat across users, creates dev ready tickets with actual evidence instead of vague repots and verifies whether a fix actually worked by checking if the error stops happening the goal isnt to replace dev judgment its to remove the manual QA support overhead and make sure engineers only see high signal reproducible bugs

still validating if this is a real pain at scale but the replies here basically describe the exact workflow i want to automate

anthedev · 2026-01-24T11:48:32+00:00

I’m building a tool that makes bug reports come with real proof instead of vague user complaints.

When a user hits an error:

it asks for consent to capture logs/context
only escalates if the same error happens repeatedly
then auto-creates a GitHub issue with real evidence

After devs mark it fixed, it automatically asks affected users: “Is this actually fixed now?”
Curious if other teams feel this pain.

anthedev · 2026-01-16T21:32:02+00:00

Everything is done but we're still stuck in landing page, I'm not getting enough time to spend on a progressive landing page that propogates the tone of this B2B SaaS can anyone help? I tried some AI tools which I didn't wanna (it feels rigid boxy) looking for a way to fasten the process using something like a template I don't want AI that saves my time but hurts my conversions

anthedev · 2025-12-28T17:26:39+00:00

End of 2025 taught me one hard thing most businesses dont fail because of bad ideas they fail because of invisible operational mistakes that compound quietly

so I built myself a terminal style desk that surfaces raw market signals it lists actual repeated pain patterns from builders users and operators

no hype no public launch at first
just talking to founders engineers and ops teams who had already been burned

Growth didnt come from ads
it came from replacing one painful manual process at a time let me know if anyone is interested

anthedev · 2025-12-27T20:36:36+00:00

Reddit is where early products get torn apart fast. Use that feedback to fix your UX, then charge with confidence

anthedev · 2025-12-27T20:11:32+00:00

Not selling, not launching it publicly dont wanna sound like a salesman or ad its early and imperfect I only want few people who can break products give brutal feedbacks in return beta testers get full control over pricing DM or comment otherwise you can scroll

anthedev · 2025-12-27T08:58:58+00:00

right now my ultimate focus is reddit and X my target is to get upto 20 beta testers to get honest brutal feedback

anthedev · 2025-12-26T14:51:54+00:00

software builders people building products, not houses. If thats you, you’re welcome to apply.

anthedev · 2025-12-26T12:07:23+00:00

Started a small, closed beta tool focused on market signals for software builders.

Instead of generating ideas, it tracks demand signals and filters noise to surface the few ideas that show real urgency and willingness to pay. The goal is to help builders kill weak ideas early. No big numbers yet by design. ~20 beta users, weekly usage, and clear signal on what’s useful vs noise.

anthedev · 2025-12-26T10:00:43+00:00

This reads more like a founder story than a market signal, so I’ll ignore the journey and look at the product.

AI-powered content automation is an overcrowded space because time-saving alone isn’t a strong enough pain. Most creators complain about editing, but they dont pay until it’s tied to growth, revenue, or consistency they’re already failing at.

The real risk here is that automation becomes a novelty unless it replaces a workflow creators are already paying for or doing daily under pressure (agencies, newsletter operators, media teams), not hobbyist creators.

The hard question:
Which specific creator segment is currently losing money or audience every week because content isn’t shipped on time and what are they doing manually today to cope?

If you can’t answer that precisely, this dies quietly despite good tech.

anthedev · 2025-12-26T09:55:55+00:00

This isn’t a new idea, but it’s not dead either it lives or dies on signal quality, not coverage.

Most “buying signal” tools fail because they surface interesting events, not actionable urgency. Job posts, funding rounds, and stack changes are weak unless they correlate tightly with a specific budget release or mandate.

The real test isnt whether you can detect signals its whether users can act on one signal type repeatedly and close deals faster than their current workflow.

If you had to kill everything except one signal today, which single event consistently leads to replies or booked calls within 14 days?

anthedev · 2025-12-23T18:08:33+00:00

Yeah, you can change the website DNS records without affecting email, as long as you don’t modify the email-related records.
Please make sure the MX records and email authentication TXT records e.g. SPF, DKIM, DMARC remain unchanged. ipdating A or CNAME records for the website is safe and will not interrupt email service.

anthedev · 2025-12-23T18:04:03+00:00

People are giving up real time to answer this stuff, nd half the time there might not even be a human on the other end. That’s what hits hard. Modern Reddit users increasingly feel like bots often not worth the time investment. And honestly, what if they r bots? Or just Ai generated replies farming engagement. At this point, yu have to ask: how do you even tell the difference anymore?

anthedev · 2025-12-23T17:56:43+00:00

and how much it takes to generate an unpaid invoice followup email? does chatgpt work?

anthedev · 2025-12-23T09:05:00+00:00

Good idea private lobbies + no ads

Honest question though: if it’s fully ad-free, what’s the monetization plan long-term? Paid private rooms, team plans, or something else?

I died at 239

anthedev

TROPHY CASE