Author Topic: iStock's novel approach to system testing (Read 3631 times)

lewis larkin · « **on:** April 24, 2015, 19:18 »

I come from an IT background, where we used to perform various layers of software testing (functional, regression, load test ...) before signing off new code for release to the operational environment. It was sometimes tedious to do, but it did minimize the numbers of errors that found their way into the live system.

iStock seem to have adopted a new approach to the problem, which became evident lately with the apparently random phased introduction of the new Asset Detail Page, whereby a percentage of users might see/not see the changes dependent on some variable criteria (whether logged on, what cookies were active and possibly more). It was difficult for the contributor base to do more than point out the more glaring inconsistencies, before the new ADP would disappear, change or revert. Of course, this effect must be evident to the buying public too, but as they don't in general post on the forums, I can only guess what their reaction would be to this randomly changing interface.

IMO this method of using a percentage of the live user base as guinea pigs for incompletely-tested code is shambolic and 'no way to run a railroad'. I had thought that maybe I was just being a bit nit-picky, and maybe not seeing the hidden beauty of their method, but Braddy unashamedly states in the recent Newsletter ...

QUOTE...
We continue to slowly release the Asset Detail Page (ADP) to a larger segment of the community. We hoped to have the new ADP live for the entire community this month but we want to ensure we have everything working as intended before we crank the dial to 100%.

There are a number of features that are currently present on the new ADP that aren't entirely optimized at this point.
UNQUOTE

To me this means " we released buggy software but , hey, not to everybody - way to go !!! "

He (Braddy) goes on to confirm that they are doing the same thing with the search results...
QUOTE
We briefly introduced our new Search Results Page (SRP) last week. It's definitely a departure from our previous interation, but it still needs a bit of work.
UNQUOTE

Which as above, means " we released buggy software but , hey, not to everybody - be grateful !!! "

I am just completely gob-smacked that a Senior Exec/Director of the company can be comfortable peddling such dirty linen in public - perhaps he/they do not see any issues with this way of running a software-based company.

On the other hand, I do have issues with such disrespect for the user/customer base. It just looks like they have settled for damage-limitation as a way of introducing new features. Of course, I have no grasp what impact/damage might be done by this piecewise suck-it-and-see methodology.

I can only hope that my analysis is overly gloomy and that the 'improvements' will be just that - improvements - which are worth any collateral damage, in which case, I will happily add my Woo-Yays to the chorus.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2015, 19:25 »

Oh, come on, give them a bit of credit, fair play.
They just used to shovel their new builds, mistakes and all, onto the full userbase at once.

KB · « **Reply #2 on:** April 24, 2015, 23:50 »

iStock has repeatedly demonstrated over the years that their software development department does not know anything about proper design, development, or deployment procedures. I worked for a company that put a very large emphasis on creating and refining Best Practices. I very much doubt anyone there has even heard of the term.

gbalex · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2015, 00:05 »

Quote from: lewis larkin on April 24, 2015, 19:18

I come from an IT background, where we used to perform various layers of software testing (functional, regression, load test ...) before signing off new code for release to the operational environment. It was sometimes tedious to do, but it did minimize the numbers of errors that found their way into the live system.

iStock seem to have adopted a new approach to the problem, which became evident lately with the apparently random phased introduction of the new Asset Detail Page, whereby a percentage of users might see/not see the changes dependent on some variable criteria (whether logged on, what cookies were active and possibly more).

I am just completely gob-smacked that a Senior Exec/Director of the company can be comfortable peddling such dirty linen in public - perhaps he/they do not see any issues with this way of running a software-based company.

On the other hand, I do have issues with such disrespect for the user/customer base. It just looks like they have settled for damage-limitation as a way of introducing new features. Of course, I have no grasp what impact/damage might be done by this piecewise suck-it-and-see methodology.

I can only hope that my analysis is overly gloomy and that the 'improvements' will be just that - improvements - which are worth any collateral damage, in which case, I will happily add my Woo-Yays to the chorus.

I have noticed this approach on other sites as well. It seems to be the pathetic new norm.

Holmes · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2015, 00:15 »

my guess is they have to save money because of all the debt from the greed so they use Odesk and have rotating coders in the Philippines working in large un-airconditioned rooms for $3 per hour.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2015, 00:57 »

as far as i know iStock's CMS was written in PHP but you can bet that Getty is running some high-end proprietary CMS running on Java or C++ or ASPnet so it must have been a mess to integrate the two things together, on top of this now they're probably running on the cloud or in a data center or in several different data centers in different countries, they probably had to rewrite the entire PHP cms from scratch or porting it to their own custom platform for performance reason, PHP doesn't scale too well unless you really know what you're doing.

i don't think Getty is doing all this in-house, they're not a software house and there's no reason they should develop their own stuff in-house, for sure they're using a commercial DAM software maybe customized a bit for their needs and they wire it all together in one way or another, it's a mess.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2015, 00:58 »

this DAM company claims to have Getty among their clients :

http://www.syroxemedia.co.uk/web-services/dam-digital-asset-management-systems.aspx

bunhill · « **Reply #7 on:** April 25, 2015, 04:33 »

Where I live what should be the pricing page comes up blank. Running in debug/console mode I see that this is because they are returning (to this location) a server error. It doesn't matter what browser I use. If I log in via a VPN in Switzerland everything comes up fine. Otherwise there is no way of buying content from them.

Therefore I suspect that this is likely to be a problem with their ip-geo-location failing to identify my country and there being no default case. It could be a problem with their site or it could be a problem with their content distribution network.

I took the time to submit screenshots, console log etc to their bug thread. But they aren't interested.