[da_murvel]

I love the idea of having your actual users testing the software, rather a dedicated tester. A dedicated, employed, tester can never use the product like a normal user would. They have too much knowledge of how the system works and what it can and can't handle. In order to truly observe something, we must completely, or as much as is possible, remove ourself from that situation. A normal user however doesn't know that it's not possible to achieve task X within the system, and will try, and if enough users try to perform that task, it might be an indication that it is a task that should be implemented or looked over to see why they are trying to perform this. This is just an example, but I find the role of a tester pretty confusing and awkward. As a developer I build and test the code I'm writing. If something doesn't work within that code I want to know as quick as possible if something isn't right. So why should I hand over my code to someone else? And also, if a user doesn't find the bug, is it really a bug?

[slededit]

As a developer the simple fact is that if I knew something could happen I would have written the code to support it. Testers are about looking at the code from a different angle. It’s not surprising quality has dropped dramatically since Microsoft embraced the idea that devs should also be testers.

Customers are the ultimate testers. But using them as guinea pigs has a cost to your reputation.

[JoeAltmaier]

Actually testers are educated and trained to do their job right. Professional ones have none of the flaws mentioned?