this course was the most boring of all. All the other courses were nice and flawless. I had much interest throughout other courses in this specialization but this one held me back.

one trainer is speaking too quietly. another one is speaking in a hurry, swallowing sound and words, making mistakes. without subtitles it's impossible to understand them.

If you went through the other five courses, the lectures and lab here are overlap.Also the labs are harder to follow in this module that the prior 5.

The premise is good, but the course and activities are kinda boring. Maybe it would be good to have practical exercises in each module.

It's too fast... I know you guys want to zip in as much information as possible but this course is really too hard to catch up with.

Some labs were not working at the time I tried... issue seemed resolved by the time I reached the end of the course.

This course is not good as other than in which we are not able to under stand quick lab what he is want in his lab

Lab3 deployment didn't work. Followed the lab. Gives me something to troubleshoot later if I use that template.

Useful because it's a summary of the first four courses.

The LAB activities are very trivial, not so interesting.

course content could be refined and edited; currently it is more of a presentation.

This course is cool but labs and practical learnings could have been more better!!

It should have more practice, but turned out to be more theory.

instructor seems knowledgeable and fun, but he'd speak slower .

not that comprehensive and structured as I expected

not as good as the others in the series

too many video, less lab

little bit boring

Good

Hello,

Second time for a coffee :)

Please review all the labs of the present course to fit with the specialization labs format. Simplify, go toward essential. I find there is a kinda repetition during the specialization, it's the second time I implement a logbook application. Missing a global specialization timeline. A lack of coherence between theoretical course and practical.

The labs could be so much more practicals, you discussed during all the theoretical course about an application which we never had the possibility to exploit/deploy, how frustrating.

In my opinion, the first lab could be:

OK we don't have the application from the dev, but we they gave us the format of data we can expect + a dataset, first guide the student to generate a

simple mockup of frontend based on Google functions+pub-sub to simulate the calls (Via G console). With templates & provided really deploy the dev part of the application that was described with the first limitation.

Then each labs would start by getting the last iteration corrected of the previous lab from a bucket you provide, first application delivered will have a a poor design which will be modified at each iteration.

Introduce the log management proposed each time and show the student where to find lead to point at the current solution problem (ex: generating fake logs during the first steps), then show how to modify the current deployment template to circumvent the limitation.

Each time add verification steps with pre-named resources like in other courses labs which ensure the progression of the student and do not generate frustration over deployment failure.

We do not need to have a high consuming application, but it should be a lite version of what was discussed.

I hope my reviews won't be too much a bother, I just hope to be able to help you to improve the quality of your course ;) Have a good day.

Regards

repeated labs and material more of deployment manager labs and notes which was already covered. very less of solution discussion. the whole course felt unnesccesary. mostly all covered direcly or indirecly in other course in the series. It would be great if the course had most common solutions like java jee spring/python djaogo production scale or serverles ETL end to end or datawarehouse analytics solution covering all design concpets of resilient high availaility etcc on such projects and covering labs for the same.

I have done a number of courses now and can tell that I do not enjoy the recordings with Jason Baker specifically.

The speaker rambles over slides, reading what the audience is reading anyway, examples are vague and not helpful, it is hard to get relevant knowledge from the lectures.

I like the other speaker Tom Terne, but he merely introduces to the lectures in a very nice and structured way.

In the long term, please consider rerecording the lectures on design process.

Thanks.

There are multiple trainings that are absolutely useless for this level of individual. One is literally just signing in to Quiklabs and closing the project. How is that not just a waste of everyone's time. All the other labs include that step. Why even make that a lab. That is utterly stupid.

Although this course focuses on a deeper understanding of cloud architecting, the labs are repetitive in content and their coverage of the course contents are very low - Its pre-requisites (Architecting GCP courses) have been much better.

The instructor has a lot of knowledge about the subject but lacks about how to teach. It explains too fast, does not make any pause and makes hard to follow the slides.

A repetition of other courses in the track, good for reinforcement however no new information is provided