However, I strongly believe that good QA doesn't need to be credited, the fact that people aren't talking about QA is a good thing, it's not just that no news is good news, but far more than that.
Let me give you the example of referees in football, if a referee has a good game then he's not going to be talked about, a good referee is a referee who goes unnoticed, doesn't make any bad decisions, and lets the game flow well. People aren't saying that the referee missed a blatant penalty or sent someone off.
To liken this to QA, if everything goes well on a project and and the product is released without any bugs and the quality of the software at the end was of a high standard then not very often will someone say the QA was great, I think it comes down to the assumption that software should be perfect without minimal effort, however, we know this isn't the case :)
Very rarely, a referee will do a great piece of refereeing, like here when Phil Dowd allowed Sunderland to play advantage and then broug the play back and awarded a penalty against Cardiff when no advantage was gained. This was heralded by Gus Poyet (Sunderland manager) as "the best decision I've ever seen from a referee".
Just like above, people will sometimes hail QA, and say what a great job they are doing, but I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that we should be happy that nobody is talking about us, it's when people start saying that the QA missed a bug or something, that we should be worried.