> the basic and commonly understood meaning of the word "unimportant" - the definition is fairly easy to understand This is nonsense. I don't agree at all. The

> the basic and commonly understood meaning of the word "unimportant" - the definition is fairly easy to understand This is nonsense. I don't agree at all. The meaning of "important" and "unimportant", with respect to any particular issue, is vague, controversial, arguable. It's ridiculous to suggest that we can easily put bugs into those two categories. > There are numerous bugs and errors in software that have no real effect on users. This is also nonsense. If there's "no real effect", then there's no bug. > But having 10 of these (your words) "nearly-meaningless" things What are you claiming to be my words? > It is what people/users seem to like and want. More accurately, what stockholders/advertisers seem to like and want. > They've "ignored" aka de-prioritized some requests, because otherwise all requests would have to be considered equally important. That's nonsense, and not how it works. In fact the Google bug tracker has a specific "Priority" label for each report. You don't need to close a bug report to assign it a priority. > When that happens, important things don't get handled. That's not true either. Not all open bug reports get "handled". > When one developer with a hawk-eye for errors drops a new bug/suggestion 1. I didn't drop a suggestion. 2. I didn't have a "hawk-eye for errors". I'm not specifically looking for bugs in Chrome. I have absolutely no desire to do free labor for an ultra-wealthy mega-corporation. I was simply using the developer tools, and they didn't work right. > Just jumping to the conclusion that they're big means they should be able to do everything Another straw man. > there is a lack of experience speaking an opinion here What "lack of experience" are you referring to? I've been a professional software developer for 19 years, how about you?