> "<i>Your browser is too old for Snapbugz.</i>"<p>Latest Chrome probably shouldn't have this.<p>> <i>"As not yet seen on:</i>"<p>Putting this at the bottom of the page with a list of popular website's icons is disingenuous to say the least.<p>It's also not clear to the user, but this service silently proxies any site you go to with little concession for what the user might be doing. Given that they're already being so unpleasant with the bottom links, I wouldn't hesitate to think that they are capturing user content as well. Even if they aren't collecting private data, they're stripping SSL data and serving it back up in plain text.<p>Completely unacceptable.
I'm against bug-tracking systems that fork a program's (or web-site's) own bug-tracking system. You end up with multiple problems:<p>1) The same bug in both places, with different buy useful discussions in each. How do you merge these two bugs? How do you mark one as a duplicate?<p>2) The developers of the program (or web-site) probably don't know you exist, so while there might be a great discussion related to the bug, the person who can actually resolve it doesn't know.<p>3) Assuming you're not the only "foreign" bug-tracking system for a program (or web-site), how do you interact with the other "foreign" systems?<p>4) There's no barrier to entry, so there's no incentive to creating anonymous bugs or to using the platform to rant at the developer.<p>You're not alone with these problems - GetSatisfaction and UserVoice have the same issues. My suggestion would be to create such an amazing bug-tracking system that the developers <i>WANT</i> to use it as their primary source. Then get bought by Github.
I like the fun feature when I type the site's own URL into the search box. First a message that reads "Do you really want to see the internet implode?", followed by a redirect to the "Google into Google" sketch from The IT Crowd[0].<p>[0] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqxLmLUT-qc" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqxLmLUT-qc</a>
Pretty asinine that I can't even read about what snapbugz is in my mobile. It might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I'll never use it, because I tried to find out more info and got slapped in the face for it. If it were of interest, <i>then</i> I would email myself a reminder to use it on desktop.
I tried one of our sites, we force https, it seems the 's' is stripped and loading fails. If the site is about discussing bugs, I would think a target market is web applications, pretty much all of which will be using https.
Images didn't seem to load in the produced screenshot, though they did load in the preview where I marked the area. Unfortunately I could not snapbugz <a href="http://www.snapbugz.com/result/minichan.org/a5a77fcb-f86a-4ad6-acc0-62eae7df6d91" rel="nofollow">http://www.snapbugz.com/result/minichan.org/a5a77fcb-f86a-4a...</a> as instead it took me to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqxLmLUT-qc" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqxLmLUT-qc</a>
Seems somewhat similar to how Google did it for Google+ in the early days. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to replicate that feedback system to be honest. I thought it was brilliant from the moment I saw it.
Please stop the background requests to tons of 3rd party servers. It's such an unhealthy trend. (Now that we know that everybody and their mother tracks and profiles us all the time.)
If you type snapbugz.com into snapbugz.com, you can break the Internet. So please, no one try it—even for a joke. It's not a laughing mater. You can break the Internet.
For all on mobiles - here is an example result page: <a href="http://www.snapbugz.com/p/88a7a69a" rel="nofollow">http://www.snapbugz.com/p/88a7a69a</a>