[cwkoss]

Absolutely. Disappointing to see this sort of shallow sales pitch blogspam making it to the frontpage. I'm surprised more HN readers don't see through this.

The entire purpose of this article is to self-servingly attempt to convince the reader that their product is the only solution to QA problems.

It correctly identifies some challenges with QA, but this solution is certainly not the only way to have effective QA. That Rainforest is resorting to such a disingenuous presentation of solutions to QA issues makes me think they probably don't actually solve QA problems very well.

"We have researched what makes QA successful and X, Y, and Z are what we found. Here's how we believe we're solving Z for our customers" would be a much more honest pitch.

[fredsters_s]

I totally see your point here - it's frustrating that how I presented it undermined the impact of the core point, which is that siloed ownership of quality is an anti-pattern, and an anti-pattern which is often a response to the limitations and design principles of quality tooling.

We are to my knowledge the only product built for this kind of cross-functional ownership, that's why I don't recommend other products.

While I agree the post is too marketing-y - to be honest I didn't expect it to appeal so much to the HN audience - it was written in good faith. We built the product because after 7 years of building a product for one of those silos, we became convinced that the only long-term durable solution was to empower everyone to own quality. Clearly I need to figure out how to strike the balance that you outline in your last sentence, which was the goal!

[Shacklz]

Oh c'mon. Of course a blog on the website of a company is ultimately trying to pitch their product, one way or another. That does not invalidate the points they bring up per se.

It obviously needs a bit of critical thinking when reading it and taking everything with a grain of salt, but that's something I really hope we can expect people on HN to be capable of?