Shipped: 5 critical bugs fixed on JewelViz this week.
Quick rundown:
Blog image uploads were silently failing (storage policy bug) — fixed
Hero images on the live site were 404ing behind a custom-domain redirect — replaced with proper static assets
Download/share buttons were exporting full-page screenshots instead of clean image files — now pulls the actual image blob
Biggest one: pricing copy across the site said "starts at ₹99, ₹33/photo" — but the actual live plan starts at ₹499. That's a real trust problem I should've caught sooner. Fixed sitewide now: "20 free credits, plans from ₹499 (~₹28/photo)."
Next up: jewelry framing (images were too zoomed out, focus on model not jewelry) and output diversity (same inputs sometimes producing near-identical results).
Still at 0 paying customers — fixing the foundation before pushing harder on growth.
Pricing copy mismatch is the worst kind of bug because it is silent - the page still loads, the user still converts, and you only find out when someone feels deceived. I run a tools site with around 100 small utilities and that exact class of bug has cost me more trust per occurrence than anything else. I ended up adding a before-deploy grep step where I search the codebase for any number, currency symbol, or hardcoded feature limit and reconcile it against the live config file. Still miss things, but way less often. The image redirect 404 is a great catch too - usually stays buried until a paying user reports it.
Debug week hits different — curious what the worst one was? Always find those critical bugs show up right when you think you're done.
the silent upload failure is the one I'd worry about most of the five, not because it's worse but because it's invisible by nature: a storage-policy rejection often still returns 200 from the SDK call, so "upload succeeded" and "the file exists in the bucket" are two different claims. worth adding a cheap post-upload check (HEAD the object, confirm it's actually there) rather than trusting the write call's return value, that's usually how these come back after the fix too.
The pricing copy bug is the real tell here. That's not a technical debt issue, it's a trust signal issue - a visitor sees "starts at ₹99" then discovers the actual floor is ₹499. You just created friction at the decision step, not the implementation step. The fact that you caught this before doubling down on growth is the right sequencing. Most teams push acquisition before resolving these gaps and then wonder why CAC is inefficient.
You mentioned fixing the foundation before pushing harder on growth.
What are you using as the threshold for “ready” there — a specific level of output quality/reliability, or are you planning to start pushing once these known issues are gone and let real usage expose the rest?