Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 617

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What makes a good bug report?

Bettenburg, Nicolas, Just, Sascha, Schröter, Adrian, Weiss, Cathrin, Premraj, Rahul, Zimmermann, Thomas·2008·Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of software engineering

Abstract

In software development, bug reports provide crucial information to developers. However, these reports widely differ in their quality. We conducted a survey among developers and users of APACHE, ECLIPSE, and MOZILLA to find out what makes a good bug report.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1453101.1453146

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 617

Metadata

Authors
Bettenburg, N., Just, S., Schröter, A., Weiss, C., Premraj, R., & Zimmermann, T.
Venue
Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of software engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2008-11-09
Pages
308-318
OpenAlex
W2160517961
Cited by
617
References
1
FWCI
21.25
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What makes a good bug report? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1453101.1453146
The paper
Bettenburg, N., Just, S., Schröter, A., Weiss, C., Premraj, R., & Zimmermann, T. (2008). What makes a good bug report? Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/1453101.1453146

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.