When is a low-impact bug worth fixing?

When its severity is high even if its reach is low, a bug that affects few players but catastrophically (deleting saves, blocking all progress, corrupting accounts) can warrant a fix because the harm to those it hits is severe. A rare data-loss bug can outweigh a common cosmetic glitch. Severity can override reach, so weigh how bad a bug is for affected players, not just how many it affects.

How do I prioritize rare versus common bugs?

Consider reach and severity together. As a default, fix widespread bugs before rare ones, since that helps the most players. But let severity override reach when warranted: a catastrophic rare bug (data loss, blocked progress) can justify a fix over a minor common one. A bug that's both rare and minor is the one to defer or close. Using both factors prevents ignoring devastating rare bugs and over-investing in trivial widespread ones.

Should I Fix Bugs That Only Affect a Few Players?

Q: Should I fix bugs that only affect a few players?

Usually not first, prioritize by reach so widespread bugs come before rare ones, since your limited time helps the most people that way. But weigh severity too: a bug affecting few players catastrophically (data loss, blocked progress, account corruption) may still warrant a fix despite low reach. Use both reach and severity together, a bug that's both rare and minor is the kind to defer, not reach alone.

Quick answer: Usually not first, prioritize by impact, so widespread bugs come before rare ones. But consider severity: a bug affecting few players catastrophically (data loss, blocked progress) may still warrant a fix. Use both reach and severity, not reach alone.

Bugs that affect only a few players are tempting to ignore, and often that's right. But "few players" isn't the whole story, a rare bug can still be catastrophic for those it hits. The answer balances reach (how many) against severity (how bad), rather than dismissing low-reach bugs automatically.

Usually, Prioritize Widespread Bugs First

As a default, bugs affecting many players should be fixed before those affecting few, your limited time helps the most people that way. A bug hitting three players generally shouldn't jump ahead of one hitting thousands. So most of the time, the answer to "fix the rare bug?" is "not before the common ones."

Bugnet ranks issues by how many players each affects, so widespread bugs naturally rise to the top. Working that ranked list from the top is the right default, which usually means low-reach bugs wait.

But Severity Can Override Reach

Reach isn't the only factor. A bug that affects few players but catastrophically, deleting their saves, blocking all progress, corrupting their account, may warrant a fix despite low reach, because the harm to those it hits is severe. A rare data-loss bug can outweigh a common cosmetic glitch.

Bugnet shows both how many players an issue affects and its nature (crash vs minor), so you can weigh severity alongside reach. A few-player bug that's devastating to those players is a legitimate exception to "reach decides everything."

Weigh Both, Then Decide

The real answer is to consider reach and severity together. High reach or high severity can each justify a fix; a bug that's both rare and minor is the kind you defer or close. This two-factor view prevents both ignoring catastrophic rare bugs and over-investing in trivial widespread ones.

Bugnet gives you both signals, reach via occurrence counts, severity via the nature of the issue, so you can make this call with full information. So: usually don't fix few-player bugs first, prioritize by reach so widespread bugs come first, but weigh severity too, since a bug affecting few players catastrophically can still warrant a fix, use both factors, not reach alone.

Usually not first, prioritize widespread bugs by reach. But severity can override: a bug hitting few players catastrophically (data loss, blocked progress) may still warrant a fix. Weigh both factors.