This isn't a question about code, but it's programming related. We have a web app that's ready for beta testing. Has anyone noticed any difference between open beta vs. closed beta in terms of the quality or quantity of feedback the testers give or any other factors?
In an open test, anyone can use the product and is usually presented with some messaging that the product is in beta and given a method for submitting feedback. In closed beta, the testing is limited to a specific set of testers, which may be composed of current customers, early adopters, and/or paid beta testers.
An open beta is a beta-level release of a game which its maker exposes to the outside world. The reasons for doing this are to get player feedback early, to use the players as a test group to find bugs, and finally to create a participatory community around the game that carries its makreting story.
Beta testing is a tool that tests customer satisfaction and provides you with an early insight into releases. It also enables you to have your say in helping shape the products you use. We do this by letting existing users trial new features and feedback to us.
We generally recommend tests that are no shorter than two weeks and no longer than twelve, with most beta tests having between four and eight weeks of test time. Below are a four key factors to consider when deciding on the duration of your test.
With a closed beta, you can limit the number of users
This might not seem like a big deal but, consider this...
Closed Beta:
Open Beta:
One of the biggest benefits of a 'closed beta' is, you have the ability to control your work load based on how many users you allow and what types of users you allow.
You need an army of 'objective' users to back you up against the 'subjective' users because the ladder group's main purpose in life is to troll the web looking for an app to trash and create a lot of sensational anti-hype over; all in the name of attracting more traffic to their blog.
If you want a really good example of how to successfully run a closed beta look to Google.
Why? Google is smart. If some random obscure bug pops up 2 years into open beta nobody can really trash google for it because it's still 'beta'. It's like Google's little way of saying, it's good but we're not completely satisfied with just good. Even if they didn't touch the codebase for the last 2 years of the beta, it still gives the impression of 'they're still perfecting it'.
Which leads me to the single most import point of why you'd want to limit the beta...
Once created, you can't change people's perceptions about your product
Watch this, "How to Ignore Marketing and Become Irrelevant in Two Easy Steps" to see what I mean. It's easily one of the most intriguing presentations I have seen.
Note: I've personally participated in multiple 'closed' betas. Namely, GMail, Google Wave, Boxee, Songbird, and a few others.
With a closed beta the people generally want to be there. They've either waited patiently in line to get an invite after signing up, or they've forgotten about it by the time it starts.
With an open beta, you get more people but they tend to be the "hey, this website is neat, I think I'll... OOH SHINY! runs off after a piece of tin foil" type.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With