Stop Using Email for Bug Reports (Here's Why)

It's 4pm on Friday. You get an email.

Subject: "URGENT - Website broken!!!"

Body: "The website isn't working. Please fix ASAP."

You reply: "What's not working?"

Fifteen minutes pass.

Client: "The checkout"

You: "What's the error?"

One hour passes.

Client: "It just doesn't work"

You: "What browser are you using?"

Next morning.

Client: "Chrome I think"

You just wasted 18 hours and 4 emails to learn they're on the staging site, not production.

This happens constantly. Client reports a vague problem. You ask clarifying questions. They answer some of them, eventually. You ask more questions. They answer those the next day. By the time you actually understand what's broken, days have passed and everyone's frustrated.

Email is fundamentally broken for bug tracking.

Email strips away all context. You don't know which page they're on. You don't know which browser they're using. You don't know what they were doing before the error happened. You don't know what they actually saw. You don't get console errors or network activity or any technical details that would help you diagnose the issue.

You just get: "It's broken."

The thread management gets nightmarish fast. Multiple bugs mean multiple email threads. Client replies to the wrong thread about a different bug. You're trying to track which bugs are fixed, which are being worked on, which are waiting for client feedback. It's all scattered across your inbox mixed in with every other email.

Nobody knows what's actually happening. Is the bug fixed? Are you working on it? Did you even see the email or is it buried under 50 other messages? The client doesn't know. Half the time you don't know either without digging through threads.

Everyone gets frustrated. Client thinks they explained it clearly ("I said the checkout is broken, what more do you need?"). You have no idea what they actually mean because "checkout is broken" could describe 50 different problems. Both sides feel like the other person is being difficult.

What actually works is showing instead of describing.

Instead of the client typing "the checkout button doesn't work," they send a 30-second Loom video. You watch them click through the checkout process. You see the exact page (URL is visible in the browser). You see their browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, visible in the window). You see what they clicked. You see the error message that appeared. If they have dev tools open, you see console errors.

You understand the problem immediately. No questions needed. You fix it. Done.

This is why Lantern exists—we got tired of wasting hours on email bug reports and built something better. Though you can do this with any bug tracker, or even keep using email and just ask for Loom videos. The video is what matters, not the specific tool.

The workflow that actually works:

Client finds a bug. They open their bug tracking portal (or email, or Slack, wherever). They paste a Loom video link showing what's broken. Optionally add a text description. Submit.

You get a notification. Open the bug report. Watch the 30-second video. See exactly what's happening. Fix it. Mark as done. Client gets notified it's fixed.

No email thread. No back-and-forth clarification. No confusion about which bug is which. Everything's tracked in one place. Client can check status whenever they want instead of emailing "any update?"

For my own freelance clients, this change saved probably 10 hours per week. Time I was spending on email clarification, searching for bug reports in my inbox, trying to remember which client reported which bug. Now it takes 2 minutes to understand a bug report instead of 45 minutes and 5 emails.

Common objections:

"My clients won't record videos." They will. It's literally one click in Loom to start recording. Easier than typing a detailed email explaining a visual problem. And once they see that sending a video means their bug gets fixed same day instead of "let me ask you some questions first," they're sold. Every bug report after that includes a video.

"I don't want to add another tool to my workflow." You're already using email for bug tracking. A dedicated bug tracker replaces email threads for bugs. One organized place instead of 50 email threads mixed in with every other email you get. That's fewer tools, not more.

"Loom costs money." The free plan lets you record unlimited videos up to 5 minutes each. A bug report takes 30 seconds. You'll never hit the limit. And if clients really hate Loom for some reason, they can use any screen recorder, or built-in recording on Mac/Windows, or even just describe the bug with screenshots. Videos are recommended because they're better, not mandatory.

Try it this week.

Next time a client sends a vague bug report via email, reply: "Can you record a quick 30-second video showing me what's happening? Use loom.com - it's free and takes one click to start recording. This will help me fix it way faster."

Client sends video. You fix bug immediately because you actually understood the problem. Client is impressed by how fast you fixed it.

Or set up Lantern and give clients a proper bug tracking portal where video is the default. 14 days free. See if it saves you time compared to email threads.

If it doesn't save you hours every week, something's wrong with your workflow. But it will. And after two weeks of actually organized bug tracking, you won't want to go back to fishing through email threads trying to find "that bug report from last Tuesday."

Email is great for a lot of things. Bug tracking isn't one of them.