I worked at a software testing firm as a summer job one year while I was still at university. A few of the guys at the firm were refugees from game testing gigs, and they universally said it sucked. So this doesn't surprise me. Their experiences sounded pretty bad at the time, being that at this "superior" job, we worked standing up in a warehouse. Not the greatest working conditions unless you think it's cool enough to be surrounded by computers of every sort.
I was really impressed by the guys who had been there for a while--they actually understood what they were doing, like the author of the linked article. If they looked over your shoulder for even a few seconds, it felt like you learned something.
One day the higher-ups noticed that I knew how to use a particular kind of software and within an hour I had a raise and a desk inside an air-conditioned office. No chance of doing warehouse work anymore. It was like the feeling you get when you go from a parking garage into a hotel lobby. That put the testing conditions into stark relief--it wasn't really as fun or interesting as I thought it would be. Putting it on my resume afterwards attracted some really boring job offers. But lots of places want cheap QA.
The people on top at the testing firm had it pretty much figured out. If their clients wanted to pay for really high-quality testing, they could do that. The resources are there. On the other hand, if they are just getting their software out the door, they can pay weak rates for summer job kids, and tell their developers to yell and scream until they get the more interesting-sounding bugs narrowed down to something actionable. I remember a few irritated emails: "I don't really care that the button is out of alignment," or "I'm not paying for grammar advice," etc. My bad, buddy. Why don't you talk to management about the conditions of your testing contract, and they'll get one of those veterans on the job? So yeah, the customers got what they paid for, too.
I was really impressed by the guys who had been there for a while--they actually understood what they were doing, like the author of the linked article. If they looked over your shoulder for even a few seconds, it felt like you learned something.
One day the higher-ups noticed that I knew how to use a particular kind of software and within an hour I had a raise and a desk inside an air-conditioned office. No chance of doing warehouse work anymore. It was like the feeling you get when you go from a parking garage into a hotel lobby. That put the testing conditions into stark relief--it wasn't really as fun or interesting as I thought it would be. Putting it on my resume afterwards attracted some really boring job offers. But lots of places want cheap QA.
The people on top at the testing firm had it pretty much figured out. If their clients wanted to pay for really high-quality testing, they could do that. The resources are there. On the other hand, if they are just getting their software out the door, they can pay weak rates for summer job kids, and tell their developers to yell and scream until they get the more interesting-sounding bugs narrowed down to something actionable. I remember a few irritated emails: "I don't really care that the button is out of alignment," or "I'm not paying for grammar advice," etc. My bad, buddy. Why don't you talk to management about the conditions of your testing contract, and they'll get one of those veterans on the job? So yeah, the customers got what they paid for, too.