Why not triaging confirmed bugs instead of new ones?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

David Alan Gilbert:
 > If people feel like confirming bugs then please do so.

  - New bugs: <http://tinyurl.com/kpv8w7f>
  - Confirmed bugs: <http://tinyurl.com/muz3f8a>

After looking at both list, I realized that users could not confirm 
private bugs; so new bugs must be included for sure in any list intended 
for triaging.

What throws the following list:
<https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&orderby=-heat>

Which has around 100.000 bugs.

This sounds like I have to come up with a smarter solution. On the other 
hand, we can include this right now if you agree.


C de-Avillez:
 > people do state they reproduced the bug on a newer version, but do
 > not update the affected version...

Realize that at that time the affected version will be out of scope, 
since it will belong to an End Of Life release.


Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
 > There is more than one way to do it, so the instructions to
 > bug triagers should not try to state The Right Way.

I agree; but if we provide a list of bugs for triaging it should be a 
useful one, not one that nobody will be willing to use.

It is not about telling people what to do, but making obvious what we 
discovered to work well; so everyone can replicate good practices fast, 
instead of leaving them the dirty work of figuring out everything.

Realizing where to start triaging is hard work for non experienced 
triagers, so I believe having a sexy list saves a lot of headache and 
empowers the bug management so much by letting everybody know what the 
most important bugs are.


Thank you.