Aleksndra Mitiukova
Hello TestIO Team,
According to TestIO Academy’s rejection reasons, the categories “Not a Bug” and “Other” are especially risky.
These reasons often depend on subjective judgment — for example, a team lead may have one opinion, while several experienced testers see the issue differently.
Example cases: 2814509, 2814496.
It’s clear that new testers sometimes submit weak or irrelevant bugs — that’s part of the learning process.
However, for experienced testers (Level 4–5) there should be a
conflict-free review system
for such cases. When a tester with proven experience gets a rejection like “Not a Bug” or “Other,” the decision should not rely solely on one team lead’s personal interpretation.
Team leads, being experienced professionals, naturally have their own perspective. But sometimes this leads to situations where decisions feel one-sided — as we say back home, “I’m the boss, you’re the fool.”
This kind of approach demotivates testers and can damage communication, especially when rejections feel emotional rather than analytical.
To make the process fairer and more transparent, bugs rejected as “Not a Bug” or “Other” should:
• undergo a double review (e.g. by another team lead or senior QA), or
• be escalated to the client for the final decision, with the possibility for testers to challenge such decisions
without opening a dispute and without payment for tester until final approval or rejection in the second round
.
But only for testers lvl4 and 5 and “Not a Bug (intentional behavior) and “Other” reasons.
Disputes are stressful and often create cold conflicts between testers and team leads, which harms motivation and teamwork.
Adding a neutral review layer for these subjective rejection categories — especially for experienced testers — would make the platform fairer, more motivating, and more professional for everyone.
Thank you for your review!
Best regards,
Aleksandra