JavaScript Developer Serhii Yeromin gave a typical story from life, which is often encountered by website customers. Aitivites discuss it lively.
JavaScript Developer Serhii Yeromin gave a typical story from life, which is often encountered by website customers. Aitivites discuss it lively.
«An acquaintance ordered a website for several pages from the company. The main selection criterion was the price. Everything was done. Everything worked.
The friend was satisfied. But a year later, bugs began to appear, and an acquaintance already wanted to change something. Of course, I applied for corrections to the same company. There they told him that it was cheaper to make a new one because the guy who made the site had already quit.
The developer added that this was the first experience ordering the site, so the customer probably didn’t even think/suspect that he needed technical support. «But the price of the site was about $300. What conclusion would you draw from this story?» Serhiy wrote .
A lively discussion began under the post. Someone agrees with the author of the post, for someone it is unclear why it is difficult to fix a small site. Here are the most interesting comments.
Quality Assurance Engineer Tetyana Ganzha said that she worked in a similar company. «This was my first experience in IT as a frontend. I will say this: even if the price were not the lowest, i.e. it would be +/- close to the average market price, this does not mean that the site would be better. At that time, the logic was as follows: if the client takes the support service, when something falls, then the site should be done normally (get confused), and if you just need a site, then everything is done quickly with the appropriate price and quality))
I hope the situation has changed now…» she noted.
Head of SEO Ivan Kirsanov reminded that the miser pays twice. «But somehow the site came to my attention… It was such a handicap that I directly said — it cannot be promoted… Well, I saw in the footer who made it. I once came across those companies and thought that the price for a website was somewhere around $7,000. But then I found out that $70,000!!! 70,000 already dead American figures, Karl, for a site that is stupidly shit,» he shared an example from his own experience.
The developer Yana Leshchyshyn asked: «I wonder, what did he do there that is easier to remake the site from scratch? Or maybe it had a lot of dependencies on libraries, and something was updated, and as a result, some functionality flew? I just can’t imagine that you can do this in a simple two-page site, that it was easier to redo it. Were the customer’s requirements to make two parallel lines perpendicular to each other?», she jokes. The girl also has a question for the company. «The company was not interested in taking on the customer, because then the code of that developer would have to undergo some kind of review, it is obvious that the customer will return to the company from which he ordered the site,» she said.
«The moral of the post is to avoid such offices if possible. All responsibility must be borne by the company that fulfilled the order, and it is already disgusting to hear about „post-priors“. And that Jun, who resigned a long time ago, simply realized that there is nothing for him here, if senior colleagues and managers let this happen in production,» wrote Java Developer Roman Manzhula .
According to him, the cost of the project should not affect scalability and support, only technology and content. «There should be a contract with a clause for further support in case of need or a clause for absolute absence.
No matter how „poor“ the project is, the product will always be the face of the company,» advises the expert.
