In two previous posts about writing better bug reports, I've detailed the information developers need to be able to reproduce — and hence diagnose and fix — bugs. Since then, an unstated assumption in both posts has been nagging at me: that developers must be able to reproduce a bug in order to diagnose and fix it.
To a developer, this is not an assumption — it's truth, and obvious. But to non-developers, the necessity of reproducibility is not obvious. If it were, devs wouldn't see so many bug reports that say little more than "A vague thing vaguely happened — fix it!!!"
I think this disconnect is the primary cause of frustrating-to-devs bug reports. If we can better understand the reason for the disconnect, maybe it'll be easier to convince non-devs of the necessity of reproducibility.