"Good job coworker X for making a hotfix, that fixed crashes".

I don't get it. Poor code, no tests, bad QA and at the end of the day people get praised for fixing the crash. Cool, I guess I know how you get promoted.

But fixing crashes is a very good thing? A major step forward in the UX, I would think, probably of significant commercial value.

It’s the same old trick that shops use:
50% off!
(off of 200% overpriced crap)

Make something bad so you can easily make it look good by undoing the bad thing.

@spongegeoff but preventing the crash with testing and QA wouldn't get your accolades, even though it would be a bigger value add to the business.

@lungdart So you're honestly saying that if you fixed the crashing in an even better way you'd receive no, or less, recognition? If I owned the product, I'd be really happy that it stopped crashing, even happier if I knew it was a tested and permanent fix, much less happy if it was still crashing and people were off writing tests or not bothering to address the problem at all because they were daunted by the amount of peripheral work introduced. If you can improve on the fix, great, nothing stopping you from doing that.

@spongegeoff that's because you can think.

Yes. Work done to prevent disaster is often considered unnecessary or a waste of time, while fixing disasters is a top priority.

It's backwards. That's OPs complaint.

Sometimes working alone is way to go, even when it means you are the only technical guy on the scrum