I deal with a lot of X.org bugs in launchpad, and I often run into an intriguing phenomenon, the so-called "me-too storm".
Essentially, a me-too storm is a bug report which accumulates a large number of confirmation statements from different people, to the point that it actually hinders progress.
Knowing that a bug affects additional people does have some value to it. I particularly appreciate it when someone of a technical bent is able to reproduce a problem, because I can have confidence that they can test out patches or at least provide insightful technical analysis.
However, past maybe half a dozen comments, the value of an additional confirmation drops off to zero. So, comments in a healthy bug report would shift from confirmatory statements towards comparing data, discussing workarounds, identifying test cases, proposing patches, and so on.
Unfortunately, with a me-too storm, the confirmation statements come in at a faster clip, and their quality often drops further. Commonly, the confirmer will not provide log files or other proof that they do indeed have the bug. This is a particular problem with X because often there are different unrelated bugs that have identical symptoms (examples include X freezes, black screens, performance degradation), and so they might have a different bug; by "me-too'ing" their bug instead of creating their own bug report, it means their issue probably won't be investigated, or it can cause massive confusion or even sidetrack the discussion away from the original bug.
The bug suffers from a bad feedback loop at this point. The more comments a bug has, the more "important" it looks to launchpad's search engine, so it gets suggested to anyone with vaguely similar symptoms. New commenters notice that some old commenters provided data already so they don't bother putting it in.
Indeed, after a while the bug report can start accumulating negative comments, that have a value below zero - they actually detract from the discussion. These range from demanding "is it fixed yet?" questions to rude, inflammatory or borderline threatening comments "fix it now or I go back to windows, you insensitive clod!!!1!" These predictably stir up a variety of 0-value follow on comments, "No, it's not fixed yet, please be patient," "yeah +1 for fixing this soon," "did you try rebooting? it helped me," "plz unsub me from this list, to many emailz," "'doze sucks, get a mac," and so on.
Now, no one would argue that "me-too storm" bugs are not important. Obviously with so many people commenting, there must be some real problem that needs dealt with. It could be a real bug, or a class of bugs with similar symptoms, or a usability issue, or even just poorly set expectations...
However, the stormy nature of these high comment bugs tends to work against themselves, for a few reasons. First, as a developer it's just plain time consuming to read through a gazillion comments. Second, these bugs can be hard to summarize and send upstream, particularly if analysis data is coming from different people (with perhaps differing hardware). Third, if you post a proposed solution, you often get feedback from people having unrelated bugs that leads you to make erroneous conclusions about the fix.
The "me-too storm" is a fascinating phenomenon, but since it hinders bug solution it is interesting to consider ways that this could be prevented or mitigated in launchpad. I'll share my own thoughts in a future post. Meanwhile, I'd love to hear other's ideas.
June 29, 2009 08:53 PM