Is it bad to mark a bug as won't fix?

Not if done deliberately. Every game has bugs that genuinely aren't worth fixing, ones affecting a handful of players in rare conditions, or costing huge effort for minimal benefit, and marking these won't fix is honest prioritisation, not negligence. It becomes bad only when used lazily to dismiss real problems; the safeguard is checking impact data first and reopening if more players turn out to be affected.

How do I decide if a bug is won't fix?

Check its real impact: how many players it affects and how severely, versus the cost to fix it. If it genuinely affects very few players in rare conditions, or would take disproportionate effort for minimal benefit, it's a reasonable won't-fix. Use impact data so the decision is informed, and stay willing to reopen the bug if occurrences climb beyond what you assumed.

Should I Mark a Bug as Won't Fix?

Quick answer: Yes, sometimes, it's a legitimate and necessary triage decision. Some bugs affect too few players, cost too much to fix, or aren't really bugs. Marking them won't fix, with impact data backing the call, keeps your backlog honest and your time focused.

Marking a bug "won't fix" can feel like giving up, but it's actually a healthy, necessary part of triage. Not every bug is worth fixing, and pretending otherwise leaves your backlog cluttered with things you'll never address. The skill is making the call deliberately, with data.

Not Every Bug Is Worth Fixing

There are always bugs that aren't worth the time: ones affecting a tiny number of players in rare conditions, ones that would cost enormous effort for minimal benefit, or "bugs" that are actually edge cases no one realistically hits. Marking these won't fix isn't negligence, it's honest prioritisation of limited time.

Bugnet's impact data, how many players a bug affects, lets you see which bugs are genuinely low-value, so the won't-fix decision is informed rather than dismissive. Closing what doesn't matter is how you protect time for what does.

It Keeps Your Backlog Honest

A backlog full of bugs you'll never realistically fix is misleading, it looks like a mountain of work and obscures the issues that actually matter. Marking low-value bugs won't fix keeps the backlog reflecting real intended work, so you and your team aren't drowning in items destined to be ignored anyway.

Bugnet lets you triage issues to a resolved or won't-fix state, so your active list stays meaningful. An honest backlog of bugs you actually intend to address is far more useful than a bloated one full of permanent residents.

Make the Call Deliberately, Not Dismissively

The caveat: won't fix should be a deliberate, data-backed decision, not a way to dismiss bugs you can't be bothered with. Check the impact, confirm it's genuinely low, and be willing to reopen if it turns out more players are affected than you thought. Used honestly, won't fix is good triage; used lazily, it hides real problems.

Bugnet's impact data and grouping let you verify a bug is genuinely low-impact before closing it, and reopen it if occurrences climb. So: yes, mark bugs won't fix when they genuinely aren't worth fixing, it's necessary triage that keeps your backlog honest and your time focused, just make the call deliberately, with impact data, not as a lazy dismissal.

Yes, sometimes, it's necessary triage. Some bugs affect too few players or cost too much to fix. Mark them won't fix deliberately, with impact data, to keep your backlog honest.