But I think it reinforces my broader point that there are two ways to approach beta programs — from a selfish perspective (i.e. “an invite is the only way I can access this app”) or from a generous perspective (i.e. “I want to help make this product better.”).

Certainly people just pounding on an app are going to reveal issues — scaling and whatnot — so it is useful to get “bodies in the room” so-to-speak.

But I think it can be counterproductive for your later ambitions if people sign up just to try-before-they-commit and write it off because it’s too “buggy”. This certainly happened to Flock, and I imagine it’s happened to Songbird and other apps in the past. People didn’t really think about what the “beta” meant, or didn’t care, and evaluated the app prematurely. And I think that’s damaging.

Instead, they should have been patient and waited until the final product had been released (or something close to final) to evaluate it. Unfortunately, betas are so commonly used and abused now that by the time you get around to getting access, you forget why you were interested in the first place.

In any case, I still think it’s worth thinking about one’s approach, as either a developer or as a tester, and optimize to whatever is more important to you at the time.

There is definitely a difference between a beta user and a beta tester. The problem with beta testing invite-only tools is that a lot of these services are like blind dates. You don’t know what you’re in for until you’re committed for dinner, and sometimes you’re so turned off afterwards you can’t wait to get away.

When I asked you for a Spotify invite, all I had to go on (beyond your advocacy) was https://www.spotify.com/en/about/what/

“Spotify is a new way to enjoy music.”

How is that going to help me decide if I want to commit to being a good beta tester? The cost of requesting an invite is so low, it’s easier to ask for an invite first and decide once you’re in. A lot of web sites with invite-only programs don’t let potential users know what they’re in for, and do a poor job of cultivating their community.

If you use something that’s invite-only that you enjoy, the quid-pro-quo should follow naturally. It can be valuable feedback or strong advocacy, but that requires that the tool is igniting some passion in users, and that’s impossible to know sometimes without trying. You’ll get both beta testers and beta users in your invite-only phase, but in my opinion beta testers graduate FROM beta users. The graduation percentage depends on how well the service cultivates its beta community, and that community begins before invite codes are even sent. I suspect, like how to implement the login page, is an aspect that’s never given much thought by developers.

So, uh, given my stance…you don’t have to send me a LittleSnapper invite. =P

Nicolas

That said, I take screenshots all day as I write for Webmonkey. Currently I use a combination of Mac’s built-in tools, the Pearl Crescent Page Saver extension for Firefox, Pixelmator and Skitch.

I’m always on the lookout to improve my workflow and I’d be happy to provide feedback from the standpoint of a daily user.

I’ve got folders full of screencaps as I haven’t yet migrated to a management utility.

I think you I could be a good beta tester for LittleSnapper. Some of the reasons to ‘invite’ me are:

1) I’ve been eagerly waiting for LittleSnapper.

2) I’m a software developer who can help ‘explain’ bugs to other developers more easily

3) I use screenshots everyday, and looked at a number of screenshot applications, for both Mac and Windows.

Thanks!

By beta testing -your- product, I hope we can improve -our- product, to improve -your- experience. Very ouroboros.

An extra benefit of invite-only and the slower pace they bring is that those answering feedback can take more time to have good discussions with testers, get followup data, and from that bring better feedback into the project. With a doors-wide-open approach, that’s not as easy, and the relationships that might have been built through an invite-only process might not happen.

I’m also a Skitch user, and would love to give LittleSnapper a try to see how it compares and contrasts, as I know what does and doesn’t work for me with Skitch.

So often I’d find myself noticing a bug or something amiss and let it pass – “Oh they already know this,” or “Geeze, I’ve never built an application. Who am I to tell them it stinks?”

Perhaps these were justifications for inaction, and I don’t mean to spill my insecurities on your weblog, but in the past I think I’ve missed the point with betas. That I’m the user. That if something seems wrong it’s my responsibility, not just to the developers, but to other users to mention what might not be working, to mention it with grace and wit and humility, but to mention it nonetheless.

Anyway, this is all to say in the past and on occasion I have stunk at beta testing, which seems a funny way to ask for an invite – give it to me I suck balls – but I kinda feel as if I have an idea about what the responsibilities and tradeoffs are of a beta tester, much more so that one or two years ago.

So, with that said, and in light of my past missteps, I think I might make a good beta tester for LittleSnapper because I use Skitch everyday and have a good relation point from which to work, I like to use an application like this for the blogging, and, most importantly, I want LittleSnapper to rock for us all and will due my part to insure that it does.

A little long here but such is my style.