Feedback on the software-testing portal courses?

Question

Automation

Hello!
Has anyone taken an automation course on the software-testing portal?
Share your feedback)
I want to try their Selenium WebDriver course: a complete guide

Answer 1

Specifically, this course they have sensible. Especially considering the new version of WD.
But automation as such will not be taught there. It is important to have knowledge in the language with which to work later.
Everything that is basic for beginners is for the lazy and especially about nothing.

Answer 2

The main thing is not to get on the course with coach Olga Nazina (Kiselyova), she doesn’t explain anything, comments from her all the time are somehow inadequate. In short, courses with her are a waste of time and money. But I liked the course on Selenium.

Answer 3

SHNAT (School of beginner testers). Lecturer: Olga Alifanova
1. Learning Portal.
Extremely uncomfortable. It takes quite a while to get used to. The information is scattered all over the place.
2. Lectures.
The lecture is a recorded video. Reading is not very good: so if you were explaining something to a friend via video link, a lot of water - little essence, few practical examples from different areas, you want to listen not only about search forms.
In addition, there are articles in the public domain, where there are also "many letters", and useful information for 1-2 minutes.
3. Acceptance of homework.
Not systematic, creating a snowball effect. The submission goes like this: in a portal organized by the forum type, where homework is the main message, you have to attach a text file in the answer, which contains a link to the homework done in some service.
Homework looks diagonal. If there are inaccuracies in the work, then as a rule, the teacher is too lazy to point out the mistakes, to explain how it could be done. Moreover, there is a feeling that the teacher does not get acquainted with the application being tested. Did something wrong / didn’t like it - think for yourself where the jamb is. This is not what is expected from paid courses, not very friendly.
4. Communication with the teacher.
Extremely inconvenient and inefficient. Questions are written in Skype chat, some recommendations are also written there. All this turns into garbage. Those. discord, apparently, was not tested in software-testing. And it could be like this: communication between students is one channel, recommendations and updates are the second, questions to the teacher are the third.
5. Services (Bug trackers, confluence, strainer).
Some of them you register yourself. In others - some kind of common account. Students often get confused - where? what? where? Information on the use of services is not systematized, divorced from lectures.
6. Total.
Get no more information than from books. It is worth coming to the course for the sake of practice, despite the poor presentation of information. Better in a group, so as not to be in a state of frustration. Because no one will lead you by the hand. There is no interest in quality training for clients .

Answer 4

It’s interesting to me, I somehow asked the same question about other courses, like who thinks what, so my question was bang, they say there’s no need to breed holivars here. And figs dispute.
I then decided that the moderator is an interested person

Answer 5

Courses for developers who want to become testers.
I took a course in C# programming for testers, B1. The course is, of course, voluminous and filled with knowledge, but it’s not suitable for beginners, you need not just basic concepts about programming, but such direct normal knowledge, which is not mentioned in the course conditions. It’s just no words what kind of stress you can experience when Barantsev says something out of the blue, like that’s enough, and then you just look and don’t understand anything, another 15k he gave, they just don’t give a damn about people with such courses. Barantsev, you would at least write before the course that you don’t need to sign up for it, like I won’t explain anything to you, I’ll just write the code and you repeat. What would you do the same all your life. The first lesson of the rules is still and then it's just PPC. I do not recommend for beginners at all. I also want to pay special attention to his video. Barantsev writes code for example 2 lessons, then he assembles the project and something does not work, he returns 2 lectures back right in the video and starts to edit, somehow explaining what is wrong there. So you Barantsev rewrite the video, you took the money, you don’t have any conscience, here every line of code is hard to come by, and he also shoots videos of mowing, he doesn’t respect his clients so much that he’s even too lazy to re-shoot them, and that the money goes and the norms, I'm sure that it is the same with other courses in python and java. Beginners do not take it in any case, you just go nuts from this impudence, a man somehow recorded a video and explains little. Or another example, he has a section there where he kind of explains OOP. It starts such classes, objects, etc., you’re so clear about the number, and then the example says I’ll show it and let’s figure it out, some kind of checks and something else and the desire just completely disappears. If you are a sheep, if you took the course, then work out the base, explain, but you apparently don’t care about the money flowing and the norms for people don’t give a damn so that it was the same with you. In short, I do not advise beginners, and if you are a master of the language, then you can handle it without these norms courses. Courses are apparently for developers who want to go to testers

Answer 6

Passed the course of Olga Nazina "School of beginner testers".
There is a lot of information in the course itself, which in general will be useful to a person without knowledge, but again, this is all in the public domain - starting from articles and videos of Olga herself, and a lot of additional information in the course - these are links to other open resources. Watching videos without rewinding is really hard, a lot of water and little specifics.
After watching the lecture, you must pass small tests to consolidate the material - the most nonsense is tasks where you need to enter the answer into the box. For example: "Briefly, but succinctly!" with other punctuation marks is already the wrong answer.
Homework is the main pain of this course (although you pay money just for this, because everything else, as I said above, is in the public domain). You submit your homework on the software-testing portal in a special form under each task.
At the beginning of the course, for all questions about the timing of homework checks, the trainer will refer you to the course rules, where it says once every how many days she should check it, but towards the end of the course, the check can simply be once a week. Although, for example, at the beginning of the course, almost everyone from our stream wrote in retrospect about rare checks, so after that there was a whole bunch of indignant messages from the coach in the chat about how we wrote this, she’s trying. For me, it's unprofessional and, well, a little childish. The retrospective is just created so that all participants in the process share their impressions, and not then listen that they were wrong!
The best option is to have time to redo the task while the coach checks. If you did not have time, then, alas, you are waiting for verification even at best for several days. There are tasks that cannot be done without preliminary clarification from the coach, which could be asked again in this forum window, because they refused to clarify this in the Skype chat, and again, you have to wait for an answer.
Also, your homework will not be checked if you do not insert a link to dz - as a link, and not just text. Apparently, the coach has paws and copy, well, this is not at all in his abilities.
By the end of the course, you just start waiting for the trainer to check the homework, there is no specific day for this, although even if you clarify the specific day of the check in order to make plans for the phone (if you are taking the course in a group), it is unlikely that the check will still be on the appointed day.
Another major pain is the coach's comments about your homework. Firstly, this is an obvious copy-paste, the coach does not even try to give out something more or less diverse, but in fact it can be experienced. It is very difficult to understand what the coach means and what is wrong with you, since this is always a rather vague one-syllable sentence. Perhaps this is a special teaching technique - first you bring the students, and then they remember better, but there are doubts.
But you can give the coach her due, at the end of the course she began to answer questions, even not quite "competent" ones. Last week, the checks were almost daily and the debts were closed. Also, everyone who had a couple of tasks left before the deadline was given time to complete, so for this a big +.
In total, in general, the course is not bad, but the presentation and rare checks discourage any desire to continue it.