Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Says No More Cash For Trash Web Bugs

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the try-offering-achievement-points-instead dept.

Bug 88

Trailrunner7 writes "It's bound to happen: you create a cool, forward looking incentive program designed to tap the 'wisdom of the crowd' and help make your products better, only to find out that, in fact, the 'crowd' isn't all that wise — and now wants you to pay cold, hard cash for their tepid ideas. That's the experience that Google appears to have had since announcing that it would extend its bounty program for bugs from its Chromium platform to the various Web applications that the company owns. In an updated blog post this week, the company said it has already committed to some $20,000 in bounties, but also provided some 'clarification' to the terms of the reward program, saying that — in essence — not all bugs are equal and that researchers dumping low priority vulnerabilities shouldn't expect to get much in return. 'The review committee has been somewhat generous this first week,' wrote Google's Security Team in a blog post. 'We've granted a number of awards for bugs of low severity, or that wouldn't normally fall under the conditions we originally described.'"

cancel ×

88 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stop sucking fifty dicks. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34209852)

See subject.
This one's free.

Just kidding, you're alright, google.

Re:Stop sucking fifty dicks. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34209864)

haha disregard that i suck cocks

Re:Stop sucking fifty dicks. (0, Offtopic)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210006)

Relevant. [bash.org]

"Web bugs"? (5, Informative)

rsteele19 (150541) | more than 3 years ago | (#34209860)

I hate to be the guy who complains about the headline of a story... but a "web bug" is an image in a web page or HTML email that allows the site owner to track who has visited the page or read the email. This story has absolutely nothing to do with "web bugs". How about "browser bug" instead?

Re:"Web bugs"? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34209892)

additionally, a "bug catcher" is slang for a hiv-negative faggot that gets fucked up the ass by an hiv-positive faggot.

Re:"Web bugs"? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34210036)

hey buddy: fuck you. go spew your hatred somewhere else. your attempt at humor fails on multiple counts.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34210100)

You must be new here.

Re:"Web bugs"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34211044)

sounds like somebody is mad about catching the bug.

Re:"Web bugs"? (2, Insightful)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 3 years ago | (#34209948)

A browser bug is a bug in a web browser, which is far more confusing still than web bug. We might just need a third word to clarify this, like Web Application Bug.

A quick search shows that Slashdot headlines aren't the only things referring to these as web bugs.

Re:"Web bugs"? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210050)

i don't think "web application bug" or "web app bug" are any different than "web bug"...

calling a bug a feature is one thing, but calling a feature a bug is ignorantly masochistic.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34210678)

This bug [ghead.com] IS a feature!

Re:"Web bugs"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34210702)

"but calling a feature a bug is ignorantly masochistic"

No, I don't think you understand. "Web bug" is a term that already has a commonly understood meaning (and has for many year), and the way it is used "bug" refers not to a coding error but to eavesdropping, like someone would bug your phone line or plant a bug in your office to listen in on you, but in this case they put a bug in your email so they can monitor when you access it.

Re:"Web bugs"? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210800)

you are using "bug" as a verb. i am using "bug" as a noun.

"tracking pixel" is a term that already has a commonly understood meaning (and has for OVER A DECADE)

professionals don't propagate the potential for confusion.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211928)

you are using "bug" as a verb.

Really? I am? The phrase "bug your phone line" certainly uses "bug" as a verb, but are you saying that in the phrase "plant a bug in your office", the word "bug" is also a verb?

"tracking pixel" is a term that already has a commonly understood meaning (and has for OVER A DECADE)

Excellent. And so has the term "web bug" been used for OVER A DECADE.

November 11, 1999 - http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Marketing/web_bug.html [eff.org]

And that's not even the earliest usage of the word, but simply the oldest and most authoritative usage of the word I could find on the the first page of results from a google search for "web bug".

Re:"Web bugs"? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211990)

considering we are talking about the noun form of the word "bug" and you're claiming that you are CERTAINLY using "bug" as a verb............ you're an idiot.

considering 123,462,235 years is still OVER A DECADE you're still not understanding why you're a moron... YOU ARE AMBIGUOUS.

ambiguity is the tool of the unsure.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:"Web bugs"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34212082)

Ambiguity may be a tool of the unsure, but you're just a tool.

Re:"Web bugs"? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212170)

anonymity is a tool only of the coward.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

are you attempting insult, feeb?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212584)

anonymity is a tool only of the coward.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

Says the guy with a slashdot account with ABSOLUTELY NOT HISTORY outside of this thread, probably just now created for the sole purpose of trolling this thread (and here I am feeding you).

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

MichaelKristopeit172 (1936956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212864)

Says the guy with a slashdot account with ABSOLUTELY NOT HISTORY outside of this thread, probably just now created for the sole purpose of trolling this thread (and here I am feeding you).

Actually the 'Kristopeit choir' has over 150 MichaelKristopeit accounts. I've picked up a few and I recommend everybody get one (or two or three).

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

MichaelKristopeit162 (1934888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213136)

"MichaelKristopeit172" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i'll bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

MichaelKristopeit172 (1936956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213314)

"MichaelKristopeit172" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i'll bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Can you copy & paste that a few more times? Your ability to post anything new or creative is as limited as your ability to pick new usernames.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

MichaelKristopeit168 (1939486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213738)

"MichaelKristopeit172" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i'll bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

MichaelKristopeit171 (1939492) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213126)

that doesn't make you right, moron.

keep fishing.

you're completely pathetic.

Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34213204)

"anonymity is a tool only of the coward." - by MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) on Friday November 12, @06:58PM (#34212170)

So is a BRAND NEW USER with no posting history before this, in yourself (and you're probably not going to be heard from again, or not much, from THIS VERY ACCOUNT ID YOU USE).

---

"why do you cower? what are you afraid of?" - by MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) on Friday November 12, @06:58PM (#34212170)

NO cowering, but you ought to be "afraid" really: You're trackable as anything because you're a "registered 'luser'" here, because of that post history you have tracking you here... think about it.

Heh - then again though, you've obviously just created that 8 digit user ID /. registered account of yours just to troll others here in this thread... & I am not the only one here stating that they've noticed that about you here in this exchange either. See here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1866182&cid=34212584 [slashdot.org]

---

"are you attempting insult, feeb?" - by MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) on Friday November 12, @06:58PM (#34212170)

No, you're the one tossing names & attempting ad hominem attacks + insults here (see your own words there and others I quoted above).

---

"you're completely pathetic." - by MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) on Friday November 12, @06:58PM (#34212170)

Hmmm: Seems YOU'RE the one reduced to name tossing directed others' way here... not I.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit168 (1939486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213750)

i'm not naming you pathetic... you're feeling as such is very telling.

is assigning responsibly to your broadcasted ideas and ideals something you are not able to do? or are you just not willing? why do you cower? cowering is a tool of the feebly unsure. you are less than completely pathetic.

you are NOTHING

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit172 (1936956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215354)

Next up, from the MichaelKristopeit choir, their over played and painfully repetitive “You Are Pathetic”.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit168 (1939486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216464)

"MichaelKristopeit172" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for you digression.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit172 (1936956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217430)

I see in the last few days you've changed 'ultimately' to 'ultimate' and 'transgressions' to 'digression'. What's next, 'untimely' and 'digestion'?

The MichaelKristopeit choir sings the song of pathetic.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit168 (1939486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222860)

"MichaelKristopeit172" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit172 (1936956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223298)

"MichaelKristopeit168" is operated by a pathetic individual. Period.

Present yourself to me and I will pitty you.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit164 (1939478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223784)

"pitty"? you're an idiot. PITY is ALL you would be capable of. i'm assuming you learned it from your mother while she expressed it through most of your childhood.

you are a disgrace.

"MichaelKristopeit172" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: present yourself to me; admit what you've done and i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit172 (1936956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34224328)

That is not my first spelling error, nor is it the first clue I have left you to who I am. You are pathetic.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (1)

MichaelKristopeit164 (1939478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34224410)

"MichaelKristopeit172" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: present yourself to me; admit what you've done and i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (1)

MichaelKristopeit172 (1936956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34224482)

Good to see you finally using MichaelKristopeit164. MichaelKristopeit163 doesn't have any posts yet so trot him out when you're feeling even more pathetic.

Use the clues or your MichaelKristopeit choir will never quite down.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (1)

MichaelKristopeit164 (1939478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34224604)

you're quite the idiot.

why do you cower in the shadows of others? are you unwilling or unable to be your own person?

you're completely pathetic.

"MichaelKristopeit172" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: i assume you welcome death. present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (1)

MichaelKristopeit175 (1940352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34224784)

are you unwilling or unable to be your own person?

Surely you jest. With 150+ MichaelKristopeit accounts you are unable to be your own people. MK Fail. Pathetic.

i assume you welcome death.

Another death threat? Don't you have anything new in your copy and paste library?

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (1)

MichaelKristopeit163 (1939476) | more than 3 years ago | (#34224886)

do you not welcome death? do you believe you'll live forever? do you believe you have the right to attempt to steal the identities of any person or people you choose? do you not expect repercussions for your actions?

you spend your days pretending to be me. i spend my days actually being me. do you NEED to be me, OR do you simply NEED to NOT BE YOURSELF?

you are NOTHING.

"MichaelKristopeit172" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: i assume you welcome death. present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (1)

MichaelKristopeit175 (1940352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34224984)

We are mocking you. No one wants to be you. Not even you. Not even the 150+ MichaelKristopeit accounts. Mocking != Being. Pathetic.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (1)

MichaelKristopeit166 (1939482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34225352)

YOU spend YOUR days wishing people would believe you were me. i spend my days being me. do you NEED to be me, OR do you NEED to NOT BE YOURSELF? why would i not want to be me? HOW COULD I NOT BE ME? have i ever presented myself as anyone but myself? you obviously can't say the same for yourself as you have no such pride or ethical morals. you're an ignorant hypocrite. a COMPLETE disgrace.

"MichaelKristopeit175" is operated by a pathetic individual attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: i assume you welcome death. present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i'll bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34282164)

Why would anyone want someone to believe they were you? You fail at understanding what a parody is.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit202 (1943250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34283220)

want is irrelevant in the face of action. you're an idiot.

ur mum's face fail at understanding what a parody is.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

refresh your bookmark again, monkey.

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305124)

I have not bookmarked any slashdot pages. Nice fail thinking the only way to revisit a page is by a bookmark.

Rage harder, faggot.

Re:Coming from an 8 digit "registered 'luser'" ID? (1)

MichaelKristopeit165 (1939480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34308252)

bottom line, you actively search out my posts to reply to. what compels you to do this instead of registering an account where you could be alerted by email?

do you feel rage? do you NEED to feel rage? can you ONLY feel rage?

ur mum's face is faggot.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit173 (1939496) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210016)

was it smart to call anything related to legitimate software a "bug" in the first place?

i've never heard of such images called anything except "tracking pixels"... as the image placed on the web site for tracking is generally a 1x1 image consisting of a single transparent pixel.

Re:"Web bugs"? (0, Flamebait)

Speare (84249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210112)

Was it smart to call anything related to legitimate software a "bug" in the first place?

I get your point, but it seems a somewhat natural word associated with eavesdropping and listening devices. A near-invisible way to tap into the activity of the visitor of a web page. The phone is bugged. The website is bugged.

In practice, many non-technical users are STILL more likely to refer to computer flaws as "glitches" (and not even distinguishing hardware, software and human error) instead of "bugs."

Re:"Web bugs"? (0, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210332)

i've never heard of the term "web bugs" and i've been doing web development pretty much since the web existed, and full time professionally since 1999 after receiving degrees in computer science and mathematics.

you're using bug as a verb in your examples... i'm talking about "bug" as a noun. "tracking pixel" is the industry standard term.

Re:"Web bugs"? (0, Flamebait)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210992)

I don't really care how long you've been doing web development. Perhaps you haven't been paying enough attention. Perhaps you've been too wrapped up in the developer terminology that your not so familiar with what the ordinary user typically calls it. I've been doing development just as long as you and I've heard the term countless times. "Tracking pixel" is not a word that non-developers typically use. Just with a really quick google search, here's a result from 1999
http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Marketing/web_bug.html [eff.org]

And your complaint about his usage...verb vs noun, "bug" is a dual purpose word where the verb form is the action of applying the noun form. Much like label. I label a jar with a label. I also bug your phone with a bug. Are you seriously unfamiliar with the term "bug" used in the noun form related to eavesdropping? It's not really new. Oxford English Dictionary has documented this usage going back to 1946.

Re:"Web bugs"? (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211082)

i don't really care what you care about... i'm pointing out that calling a software feature a "bug" is ignorantly masochistic.

professionals, SUCH AS MYSELF, refer to such images intended for user tracking as "tracking pixels", and would suggest the same to anyone careless enough to call them "bugs".

yes, bug is a dual purpose word, but this conversation is ENTIRELY about only ONE of those forms. you're an idiot.

are you familiar with phrases such as "the room was bugged with a listening device?" the ambiguity of the generalized term "bug" makes its use moronic.

you're a moron.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211876)

You are revealing WAY too much about your own intellect with your angry, uncontrolled ranting.

calling a software feature a "bug"

You seemed to have completely missed what is being discussed here, despite the extensive discussion over that exact subject. This isn't "bug" as in "software error". This is "bug" as in the following:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bug [merriam-webster.com]
"a concealed listening device"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bug [reference.com]
"a hidden microphone or other electronic eavesdropping device."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bug_4 [cambridge.org]
"a very small device fixed on to a telephone or hidden in a room, that allows you to listen to what people are saying without them knowing"

a "web bug" is merely the web based version of an eavesdropping device.

So yes, the conversation is indeed ENTIRELY about only ONE form of the word....the form I just documented.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211916)

forming words does not require control? did i claim to be angry? do you feel anger? is it because you're an idiot?

a "web bug" is NOTHING but a term used by morons with no respect for the person they are conveying their ignorance to.

you're a moron.

Re:"Web bugs"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34241532)

Well bugs are unwanted behavior, right. "Tracking pixels" are unwanted behavior, when the user knows about them, so bugs is appropriate.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

MichaelKristopeit177 (1940422) | more than 3 years ago | (#34259432)

tracking pixels are not unwanted behavior... they don't behave at all. you're an idiot.

tracking pixels are only as "unwanted" as cookies are unnecessary.

you have a severe logical disconnect between necessity and sufficiency, and the potential for opposing viewpoints. bugs are not unwanted behavior... they are only UNINTENDED behavior, perhaps adding wanted functionality by mistake.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Are you sure? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34210032)

I disagree with you, cum-guzzle. But I do think that you're on to something...

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210246)

but a "web bug" is an image in a web page or HTML email that allows the site owner to track who has visited the page or read the email.

Silly me, I always thought of spiders as being "web bugs". Computer programming errors are called errors; Such errors that lead to an exploit of the system are called exploits.

How about HTML errors, Browser errors, JavaScript errors, database exploits, etc.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211420)

Spiders aren't web bugs because they have 8 legs instead of 6.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212560)

Spiders are bugs. They're not insects.

Re:"Web bugs"? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212806)

A bug is an insect of the order Hemiptera, known as the true bugs.
from Wikipedia

Oh shut the f up . (1, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34209876)

you got a lot of bugs in your apps fixed with just $20,000, and in one week, and you are bitching about it. its just $80k/month, at this state.

every one of those low priority bugs could be driving off a user or a customer at this point, had they not been fixed.

Re:Oh shut the f up . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34209924)

Just 80k eh? I want to live in your world where 80k a month isn't a lot of money. They could easily hire 2-3 full time programmers for that.

And "you're not rendering this properly on this site" is not as worthy as "shit crashes when foo happens".

Re:Oh shut the f up . (1)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210816)

Two programmers, maybe, but 3? Are you kidding? What kind of quality programmer are you going to be able to hire by splitting 80k 3 ways?

Re:Oh shut the f up . (1)

godefroi (52421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210868)

80k per month? That's 960k/year, or for 2 developers, 480k/year each, or for 3 developers, 320k/year.

If that can't buy you good developers, something's wrong with your company. I, for one, would be happy to make what would come from splitting that 10 ways (and I've been developing software for 15 years).

Re:Oh shut the f up . (1)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211020)

I think the GP misunderstood 80k to mean 80k/year.

Re:Oh shut the f up . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34211140)

It's easier to pretend to be an autistic faggot and argue with people than it is to acknowledge the poster might have just simply misread the GP.

Re:Oh shut the f up . (1)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213144)

Yep I misread, reading comprehension fail sorry folks!

Re:Oh shut the f up . (2, Interesting)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34209940)

Had the same feeling. How serious are they about Chrome? The cost of this, even for small bugs, is a drop in the bucket. I'm guessing some manager just got sick of doing their job wondering why they have to pay out what should be a bonus for them to lowly internet people for common bugs.

Re:Oh shut the f up . (1)

dirtyhippie (259852) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210094)

The problem is that a bounty system isn't supposed to be broken routinely - it's supposed to be a statement about the infallibility of the product. In other words, the project was launched in the PR wing of google's offices, not people involved in the actual development of chrome. Obligatory xkcd reference is here: http://xkcd.com/816/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Oh shut the f up . (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211270)

80 k a month to perfectly polish a product. excuse me, but if this is broken, there are a lot of companies who want that kind of brokenness.

Re:Oh shut the f up . (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210304)

Google says the base reward is $500. Each of those bugs needs to be driving off a lot more than one user to be worth that much...

Re:Oh shut the f up . (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211414)

every one of those low priority bugs could be driving off a user or a customer at this point, had they not been fixed.

Driving people off from their products which are free or ad-supported?

Even if we were to grant your premise that it's happening and in some way significant, that's a lot of money. If 1,000 people per month would have left, and I think that's very much on the high end, you're paying $80 per user retention. Based on ad revenue, how long is that going to take to recover? Months and months during which you are still paying out more money for other non-bugs people are reporting so you can have the honor of trying to recoup your costs to them?

But it's worse than that -- a lot of what Google does isn't about your specific value to them, but rather your value as an aggregate. Google Voice is a great example; free US calls is going to cost them some bucks, far more than each of those customers brings as their share of some sort of advertising revenue, but there is value to them because they can use all those free users to tune their speech-to-text algorithms, algorithms that then show up on YouTube and suddenly allow the beginnings of search inside of videos by their contents. Something that, if done fairly well, is going to attract all sorts of searchers and bump up advertising revenue appropriately. Losing a few thousand of the millions of users its various services have is even less significant in that perspective.

While I couldn't find any sort of list of "bugs we paid but think are stupid," we can infer a bit from their clarifications. XSS attacks on sandboxed domains; URL redirectors; vulnerabilities in applications they have just purchased and may not even continue -- these don't sound like the sort of problems users are leaving over except perhaps the latter, and I'm not sure Google is crying to the tune of $80,000 a month that people are leaving a service it hasn't even decided if it wants to keep. Hell, if they wanted to throw away $80,000 a month on things of questionable value they could hire 12 new $80,000 a year employees and assign them to... you know, whatever. Or nothing. Might have the same ultimate value.

Re:Oh shut the f up . (3, Informative)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211634)

They got the bugs pointed out for $20,000. They still have to fix them.

Maybe they will sell the bugs to the Russian Mafia (0, Troll)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34209922)

Google is pulling another dick move here. Their bounty for bugs program provided an incentive for people to report the bugs to Google. Even though a bug may be "low priority" to Google, a researcher probably spent some pretty decent time finding and verifying the bug.

Maybe other parties will start offering bounties for Google bugs. Perhaps their intentions will be noble, and perhaps they are goin' fishin'...

Re:Maybe they will sell the bugs to the Russian Ma (4, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34209986)

Google paid out for those poor results, too; and then said they're not doing that anymore. They stood by their offer; however they've decided to modify the terms going forward. Retroactive modification is irritating; otherwise it's just every day life.

Re:Maybe they will sell the bugs to the Russian Ma (3, Funny)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210668)

I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
- Darth Google (not evil)

Re:Maybe they will sell the bugs to the Russian Ma (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212190)

Wait, this seems like bullshit to me.

Because Google doesn't rank the exploit as high priority, it's "poor" all of a sudden?

You drank the fucking Kool-aid buddy.

Re:Maybe they will sell the bugs to the Russian Ma (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222980)

It's better than taking it and going, "Oh, thanks. Well, this is nice and I'll keep it but it's really not so good, so I think I'll just send you on your way." They took stuff, they paid, and they told everyone else "well we didn't think this out completely, so let's not do that anymore."

Re:Maybe they will sell the bugs to the Russian Ma (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34224830)

I think the point is that Google is deciding arbitrarily what is a high and low priority bug.

What incentive do you have to spend time researching Chrome bugs and sending them your findings, if they will turn around and say "Oh, this bug isn't really that important to us, so we're not going to pay.

Aside from that what were they paying for each bug, something like $200 on up? Not a huge amount of cash for Google to be throwing around there.

Re:Maybe they will sell the bugs to the Russian Ma (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34209988)

A private exploit for a mass-market browser is an incentive in and of itself.

Not so much ideas.... (4, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34209958)

Not so much ideas, as professional work. If you post bounties like this, people will send in whatever bugs they can scour out in hopes of getting paid. That means it's working. Think of it like this, how much do you think a closed-source security review on this scale would have cost?

Re:Not so much ideas.... (1)

BLToday (1777712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210382)

Q: "how much do you think a closed-source security review on this scale would have cost?"

A: Windows Vista. Both in term of monetary cost and reputation.

Re:Not so much ideas.... (2, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211630)

When I read it my thoughts were that it might be more complex than this.

My first thought is that people are reporting bugs that Google simply thought were too minor and did not want to devote resources. For example, intermittent bugs that can be solved with a page refresh are not likely going to cost customers, or cost Google very much, but could be very costly not only to diagnose, but to fix in such a way that everything else does not break.

Alternatively they may not wish to pay the small bounty on many minor issues in hopes of making it up with a small bounty on a major issue. If they are going to differentiate small and large issues, then they should differentiate with small and large payments, say 137 for minor bug and 133337 for a major bug. I would imagine that some researchers are funding their search for larger bugs with the payments on smaller bugs. I imagine that the search for larger bugs might slow if the payment disappear.

Crowdsourcing is not about majority rule (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34210364)

It looks like they are starting to get the idea that a lot of people who talk about "crowdsourcing" have yet to understand: quantity != quality. We know that in so many other places; so why do people fail to recognize this fact in crowdsourcing?

The best ideas are likely to be uncommon not common. If you're looking for something valuable, you don't want the thing that is most popular on first glance. You want the thing that can really win everyone over in the long run. That's the principle behind collaborative governance [metagovernment.org] , which again, is horribly misunderstood as some sort of mob rule thing.

Even Slashdot knows better than to just give everyone a vote on everything. They have limited moderation, and then meta-moderation as a secondary check. And even that is rather primitive compared to the collaborative governance stuff.

Re:Crowdsourcing is not about majority rule (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210502)

The difference here, of course, is that combing an application for bugs is not really a creative activity. You can get very creative when it comes to writing an exploit, of course, but that's still not so much about "ideas" and more about being very good at assembler programming/tossing around machine instructions.

mod 3own (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34210398)

OF AMERIC6A irc faster chip has run fas7er By BSDI who sell

(plus on3 Informative) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34210494)

really! (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210862)

>some $20,000 in bounties
Wow problems paying out 20,000$ for doing your job for you, and actually still catching some bugs,
yet your shares are still climbing steadily....I thought google would have been a little more supportive of the dev community trying to help them out, especially seeing as most google employees have the 6 cars in the driveway and are not really strapped for cash.

Only $20K? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34211576)

For a multi-billion dollar company that seems like a rather small investment. Perhaps Google should stop snivelling about people trying do them over for cash and actually do some bug testing themselves. They would spend a lot more than $20K if they did it all in house!

Don't see what everyone's problem is (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211638)

Google is merely stating from this point onward, they're going to scrutinize the severity of the bugs reported before paying out. If people aren't willing to accept that their bugs might get them nothing, they don't need to get involved.

The web bugs is Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34213720)

Web bug? Google provides trash. When will they get a life?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>