X
Business

Study reveals bug factor in Foursquare, Gowalla and Brightkite

The uTest "Check-In Challenge" shows near 900 technical, functional and GUI bugs
Written by Jennifer Leggio, Contributor

While the popularity of social check-in services appears to be on the rise, a recent study by uTest, a software testing marketplace, revealed that top apps such as Foursquare, Gowalla and Brightkite have produced near 900 bugs between them. The uTest "Check-In Challenge" surveyed more than 300 uTesters from nearly 40 countries around the world, who reported a total of 870 technical, functional and GUI bugs in the web and mobile apps of all three of these surveys.

According to the study:

  • Foursquare earned the highest scores in most categories and received the most positive overall feedback.
  • Gowalla took the top honors in the important category of location accuracy.
  • Brightkite trailed the others in most categories, but earned a second place finish for ease-of-use (ranked as most important).
  • Almost half of all respondents (46%) selected ease-of-use as the most important criteria for selecting a check-in service.
  • “Opportunities to receive special deals/discounts” received a historically low score across all three apps with an average top-two box score of 28%.
  • 80% of respondents responded “Yes” when asked if they were concerned about how the services could impact their personal privacy/safety.
  • Nearly half of respondents (49%) chose “privacy and security concerns” as the top reason they do not use check-in services more often.

“According to a recent Twitter post from Foursquare, their users’ number of check-ins grew 50% in the last month with nearly 900,000 check-ins on June 4th alone,” said uTest VP of Marketing & Community, Matt Johnston. “Location-based check-in apps are truly one of the fastest growing segments in the entire mobile space. This Bug Battle clearly demonstrated that app usability and location accuracy will be critical to the company that wins in the market for check-in services.”

Visit the full report.

Editorial standards