There should be a way to notify the user that they are getting a staged release and what that means

Quicken Community

Currently there is no way for a user to know if the patch release they are being offered is a staged release or not.  And most people have no idea what a staged release is.

You wouldn't sign up users to be beta testers without them understanding what they are signing up for.  The same should be true for staged releases.

P.S. There should be a category below for installing on Mac.

Rocket J Squirrel

Vote added. I never knew another product which enlisted unknowing gamma testers.

smayer97

Yes, whether called alpha, beta, gamma or staged testing, other software give you the visibility and the option to participate or not. A simple option in the software to choose to receive "early" or "staged" releases should be added.  

mshiggins

Users who opt in for the staged release testing should get something for their effort, perhaps a discount?

Lysander Spooner

Great idea!

______________________________
Undocumented Quicken Beta Tester

jacobs

I respectfully disagree that customer who receives an update while it is being staged should get something. This is not supposed to be like beta testing; this is supposed to be software that has been tested and the company believes is stable for users. There is no reporting requirement or expectation of testing. But because it's an early adoption program, there is a slightly higher risk of something going wrong, so...

I fully agree that there should be a notification to the user before accepting the download that this is an early release and that they can opt to decline it if they'd prefer to let other users try it first. (The notice would also have to explain that if they decline now, it may not be available again for another few days, or longer if any problems turn up with the early release adopters.)

mshiggins

From C. D. Bales:



I have no objection to the suggestion itself; though I doubt it will reduce the complaints that have always existed (long prior to "staged releases"). Complaints that are typically, false, claims phrased something like: "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those statements are based on the absurd notion that users are entitled to bug-free software.



But the alleged problem of users, uninformed about their role in "testing", is non-existent. Prior to "staged releases", every Quicken user was a "gamma tester". And if/when the suggestion of this discussion is implemented: every Quicken user will ultimately be a "delta" user.



No user is required to participate in testing at any level: but those who have problems and want the product to work better are just shooting themselves in the foot by complaining but refusing to participate in the process of finding/fixing the problems they experience.



If the false notion that users should not be subjected to bugs, or be expected to assist in finding/fixing those bugs, gains any meaningful traction; the product those users claim to like, will ultimately fail.



Back before there were personal computers and before everyone was a self-proclaimed "software developer"; once formal attempts at pre-release testing were completed, software was put into "production" ... at that point, the software automatically went into the "production testing" stage.


Those who designed and wrote the software were the only ones who used that term: users were never formally notified of this stage. And in those days, there were no more - and possibly even less - complaints, such as "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those users knew there was no such thing as bug-free software.



Nothing has changed: software is never out of "testing mode".

Walter@@

mshiggins said:

From C. D. Bales:



I have no objection to the suggestion itself; though I doubt it will reduce the complaints that have always existed (long prior to "staged releases"). Complaints that are typically, false, claims phrased something like: "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those statements are based on the absurd notion that users are entitled to bug-free software.



But the alleged problem of users, uninformed about their role in "testing", is non-existent. Prior to "staged releases", every Quicken user was a "gamma tester". And if/when the suggestion of this discussion is implemented: every Quicken user will ultimately be a "delta" user.



No user is required to participate in testing at any level: but those who have problems and want the product to work better are just shooting themselves in the foot by complaining but refusing to participate in the process of finding/fixing the problems they experience.



If the false notion that users should not be subjected to bugs, or be expected to assist in finding/fixing those bugs, gains any meaningful traction; the product those users claim to like, will ultimately fail.



Back before there were personal computers and before everyone was a self-proclaimed "software developer"; once formal attempts at pre-release testing were completed, software was put into "production" ... at that point, the software automatically went into the "production testing" stage.


Those who designed and wrote the software were the only ones who used that term: users were never formally notified of this stage. And in those days, there were no more - and possibly even less - complaints, such as "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those users knew there was no such thing as bug-free software.



Nothing has changed: software is never out of "testing mode".

There is not a successful business out there that would purchase software based on the above statements(assumptions). Why should the individual settle for such a flawed business model?

Unknown

mshiggins said:

From C. D. Bales:



I have no objection to the suggestion itself; though I doubt it will reduce the complaints that have always existed (long prior to "staged releases"). Complaints that are typically, false, claims phrased something like: "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those statements are based on the absurd notion that users are entitled to bug-free software.



But the alleged problem of users, uninformed about their role in "testing", is non-existent. Prior to "staged releases", every Quicken user was a "gamma tester". And if/when the suggestion of this discussion is implemented: every Quicken user will ultimately be a "delta" user.



No user is required to participate in testing at any level: but those who have problems and want the product to work better are just shooting themselves in the foot by complaining but refusing to participate in the process of finding/fixing the problems they experience.



If the false notion that users should not be subjected to bugs, or be expected to assist in finding/fixing those bugs, gains any meaningful traction; the product those users claim to like, will ultimately fail.



Back before there were personal computers and before everyone was a self-proclaimed "software developer"; once formal attempts at pre-release testing were completed, software was put into "production" ... at that point, the software automatically went into the "production testing" stage.


Those who designed and wrote the software were the only ones who used that term: users were never formally notified of this stage. And in those days, there were no more - and possibly even less - complaints, such as "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those users knew there was no such thing as bug-free software.



Nothing has changed: software is never out of "testing mode".

Of all the software ANYONE uses, Quicken appears to be the buggiest...and continues to be with every update.

Because for every bug they apparently try to fix, they somehow introduce even more fatal bugs for some, if not a lot of, users. 

That's what frustrates Quicken users.  

Unknown

Based on the comments here I would like to clarify my idea.

I guess I caused problems by comparing it to having people get a beta version without them signing up for it.

I wasn't trying to imply that the people getting staged releases are beta testers.  They are simply the first people to get the release.

These were poor words on my part.

Whether people realize it or not "Stage Release" is a common practice.  For instance it is how Windows 10 bi yearly updates are sent out.

It is a very good practice.  No matter how much testing you do internally you can't test all possible combinations that the user's might have.

If you release to everyone all at the same time and something doesn't go as planned, you have your whole user base affected.  Which in turn causes things like overloading your support channels.
No one benefits from this.

And that exactly what Intuit with Quicken in the past, and that is exactly what happened.
Would you really like to go back to not releasing in stages, and everyone get it at the same time?
How would your life be better?

Every person/company would love to have totally problem free software.  But software is written by humans that are perfect.  And what's more one man's bug might actually not be a bug based on what the software is suppose to do (just because we might want a program to work a certain way doesn't mean it was designed to work that way.).

The main thrust of this idea was to make the process more "visible" to users.

Getting a "staged release" has a few ramifications other than just getting a new patch.

For instance you might have two machines that you copy the same data file between.
One might get the patch and the other doesn't.  Most of the time that won't matter, but there have been cases where it does.

Also you might uninstall and reinstall and now you don't have the same release, and if you are aware of the fact that you got a staged release you might not understand why you can't get the latest release again.

BTW in general if you are really concerned about new releases you shouldn't accept any of them until you come to the forum and check to make sure there isn't any major problems.

Unknown

mshiggins said:

From C. D. Bales:



I have no objection to the suggestion itself; though I doubt it will reduce the complaints that have always existed (long prior to "staged releases"). Complaints that are typically, false, claims phrased something like: "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those statements are based on the absurd notion that users are entitled to bug-free software.



But the alleged problem of users, uninformed about their role in "testing", is non-existent. Prior to "staged releases", every Quicken user was a "gamma tester". And if/when the suggestion of this discussion is implemented: every Quicken user will ultimately be a "delta" user.



No user is required to participate in testing at any level: but those who have problems and want the product to work better are just shooting themselves in the foot by complaining but refusing to participate in the process of finding/fixing the problems they experience.



If the false notion that users should not be subjected to bugs, or be expected to assist in finding/fixing those bugs, gains any meaningful traction; the product those users claim to like, will ultimately fail.



Back before there were personal computers and before everyone was a self-proclaimed "software developer"; once formal attempts at pre-release testing were completed, software was put into "production" ... at that point, the software automatically went into the "production testing" stage.


Those who designed and wrote the software were the only ones who used that term: users were never formally notified of this stage. And in those days, there were no more - and possibly even less - complaints, such as "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those users knew there was no such thing as bug-free software.



Nothing has changed: software is never out of "testing mode".

Yea, this is silly retort. Of course we don't expect there to not be any bugs at all.  But look at the 2018 Bill Reminders changes.  That was just broken on release.  That was beta software.  Its still has issues now.

Unknown

QPW said:

Based on the comments here I would like to clarify my idea.

I guess I caused problems by comparing it to having people get a beta version without them signing up for it.

I wasn't trying to imply that the people getting staged releases are beta testers.  They are simply the first people to get the release.

These were poor words on my part.

Whether people realize it or not "Stage Release" is a common practice.  For instance it is how Windows 10 bi yearly updates are sent out.

It is a very good practice.  No matter how much testing you do internally you can't test all possible combinations that the user's might have.

If you release to everyone all at the same time and something doesn't go as planned, you have your whole user base affected.  Which in turn causes things like overloading your support channels.
No one benefits from this.

And that exactly what Intuit with Quicken in the past, and that is exactly what happened.
Would you really like to go back to not releasing in stages, and everyone get it at the same time?
How would your life be better?

Every person/company would love to have totally problem free software.  But software is written by humans that are perfect.  And what's more one man's bug might actually not be a bug based on what the software is suppose to do (just because we might want a program to work a certain way doesn't mean it was designed to work that way.).

The main thrust of this idea was to make the process more "visible" to users.

Getting a "staged release" has a few ramifications other than just getting a new patch.

For instance you might have two machines that you copy the same data file between.
One might get the patch and the other doesn't.  Most of the time that won't matter, but there have been cases where it does.

Also you might uninstall and reinstall and now you don't have the same release, and if you are aware of the fact that you got a staged release you might not understand why you can't get the latest release again.

BTW in general if you are really concerned about new releases you shouldn't accept any of them until you come to the forum and check to make sure there isn't any major problems.

Got to love this.  :-)

But software is written by humans that are perfect.

Of course I meant aren't perfect, as I just proved again!

smayer97

QPW said:

Based on the comments here I would like to clarify my idea.

I guess I caused problems by comparing it to having people get a beta version without them signing up for it.

I wasn't trying to imply that the people getting staged releases are beta testers.  They are simply the first people to get the release.

These were poor words on my part.

Whether people realize it or not "Stage Release" is a common practice.  For instance it is how Windows 10 bi yearly updates are sent out.

It is a very good practice.  No matter how much testing you do internally you can't test all possible combinations that the user's might have.

If you release to everyone all at the same time and something doesn't go as planned, you have your whole user base affected.  Which in turn causes things like overloading your support channels.
No one benefits from this.

And that exactly what Intuit with Quicken in the past, and that is exactly what happened.
Would you really like to go back to not releasing in stages, and everyone get it at the same time?
How would your life be better?

Every person/company would love to have totally problem free software.  But software is written by humans that are perfect.  And what's more one man's bug might actually not be a bug based on what the software is suppose to do (just because we might want a program to work a certain way doesn't mean it was designed to work that way.).

The main thrust of this idea was to make the process more "visible" to users.

Getting a "staged release" has a few ramifications other than just getting a new patch.

For instance you might have two machines that you copy the same data file between.
One might get the patch and the other doesn't.  Most of the time that won't matter, but there have been cases where it does.

Also you might uninstall and reinstall and now you don't have the same release, and if you are aware of the fact that you got a staged release you might not understand why you can't get the latest release again.

BTW in general if you are really concerned about new releases you shouldn't accept any of them until you come to the forum and check to make sure there isn't any major problems.

just needed a */sarcasm tag  ;-)

Snowman

mshiggins said:

From C. D. Bales:



I have no objection to the suggestion itself; though I doubt it will reduce the complaints that have always existed (long prior to "staged releases"). Complaints that are typically, false, claims phrased something like: "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those statements are based on the absurd notion that users are entitled to bug-free software.



But the alleged problem of users, uninformed about their role in "testing", is non-existent. Prior to "staged releases", every Quicken user was a "gamma tester". And if/when the suggestion of this discussion is implemented: every Quicken user will ultimately be a "delta" user.



No user is required to participate in testing at any level: but those who have problems and want the product to work better are just shooting themselves in the foot by complaining but refusing to participate in the process of finding/fixing the problems they experience.



If the false notion that users should not be subjected to bugs, or be expected to assist in finding/fixing those bugs, gains any meaningful traction; the product those users claim to like, will ultimately fail.



Back before there were personal computers and before everyone was a self-proclaimed "software developer"; once formal attempts at pre-release testing were completed, software was put into "production" ... at that point, the software automatically went into the "production testing" stage.


Those who designed and wrote the software were the only ones who used that term: users were never formally notified of this stage. And in those days, there were no more - and possibly even less - complaints, such as "I didn't sign up to be a beta tester". Those users knew there was no such thing as bug-free software.



Nothing has changed: software is never out of "testing mode".

Back then before the internet there was more incentive to "get it right" the first time and so stuff still slipped through.  Today however there is very little incentive to get it right the first time, it is common to hear "we will just fix it in an update".

psobilo

QPW said:

Based on the comments here I would like to clarify my idea.

I guess I caused problems by comparing it to having people get a beta version without them signing up for it.

I wasn't trying to imply that the people getting staged releases are beta testers.  They are simply the first people to get the release.

These were poor words on my part.

Whether people realize it or not "Stage Release" is a common practice.  For instance it is how Windows 10 bi yearly updates are sent out.

It is a very good practice.  No matter how much testing you do internally you can't test all possible combinations that the user's might have.

If you release to everyone all at the same time and something doesn't go as planned, you have your whole user base affected.  Which in turn causes things like overloading your support channels.
No one benefits from this.

And that exactly what Intuit with Quicken in the past, and that is exactly what happened.
Would you really like to go back to not releasing in stages, and everyone get it at the same time?
How would your life be better?

Every person/company would love to have totally problem free software.  But software is written by humans that are perfect.  And what's more one man's bug might actually not be a bug based on what the software is suppose to do (just because we might want a program to work a certain way doesn't mean it was designed to work that way.).

The main thrust of this idea was to make the process more "visible" to users.

Getting a "staged release" has a few ramifications other than just getting a new patch.

For instance you might have two machines that you copy the same data file between.
One might get the patch and the other doesn't.  Most of the time that won't matter, but there have been cases where it does.

Also you might uninstall and reinstall and now you don't have the same release, and if you are aware of the fact that you got a staged release you might not understand why you can't get the latest release again.

BTW in general if you are really concerned about new releases you shouldn't accept any of them until you come to the forum and check to make sure there isn't any major problems.

For those looking for bug-free software, forget about it.  It doesn't exist.  How many updates does TurboTax release each year?  Bugs do not exist strictly in software.  How many cars have been recalled for wiring issues or sensor issues?  How many Intel chips have been released with issues that hackers can take advantage of?

If you want/expect bug-free anything, you're on the wrong planet.

Quicken_Tyka

Hello All,

 This Idea seems to have fallen stagnant and due to the Age of the request and lack of User Votes/Comments, will be archived within the next 7 business days.

 If you would like to see this Idea kept alive and considered for possible future implementation in Quicken, be sure to Add your Vote and a comment explaining how this Idea would be beneficial for you.

More information, including steps to vote and how to submit your own Ideas for future product features/improvements, is also available here.

 Thank you,

 Quicken Community Support Team

Rocket J Squirrel

I just added back my vote, which had vanished.

Greg_the_Geek

Maybe it was a hanging chad. 

q_lurker

Idea should be implemented, IMO, rather than archived (meaning 'ignored and forgotten"). 

mrzookie

I'm resurrecting this request. I'd like to know upfront if I've received a "staged" release so I can decide whether I want to install it or not.

Q97

+1 My data is too valuable to beta test.