Do you think that Exploratory Testing is more than Superficial Bug Hunting? Explain why?
As both the techniques i.e. Exploratory Testing & Superficial Bug Hunting are used in finding the escape defects that are not covered in test case scenarios but in my views Superficial Bug Hunting is more helpful in finding those such errors. ET will be done by those testing team who have already tested the application and executed the test cases but in bug hunt we use the testers who haven't worked on that application. These testers would think from different prospective as compare to the team having a prior knowledge. Secondly ET will be done when all the SBT & RBT test cases have been executed and Bug hunt will perform just prior to the production release. So keeping the above points in mind we can say that Superficial Bug Hunting is more beneficial than ET.
As both the techniques i.e. Exploratory Testing & Superficial Bug Hunting are used in finding the escape defects that are not covered in test case scenarios but in my views Superficial Bug Hunting is more helpful in finding those such errors. ET will be done by those testing team who have already tested the application and executed the test cases but in bug hunt we use the testers who haven't worked on that application. These testers would think from different prospective as compare to the team having a prior knowledge. Secondly ET will be done when all the SBT & RBT test cases have been executed and Bug hunt will perform just prior to the production release. So keeping the above points in mind we can say that Superficial Bug Hunting is more beneficial than ET.
Do you want more on this, please log on to: http://www.qainfotech.com/