let's go through this again: just because a specific bug might be important to _you_ does not mean it is important to anyone else. You might thing bug 109212 is obviously important, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of other bugs that are just as old, that might be important to someone else. The Chrome folk fix the bugs either directly important to them/google, and the bugs that are important to the most people. That's basic prioritization, and anyone who thinks that bug priority should be a function of age, rather than real world impact is bad at prioritizing.<p>This also isn't a solvable problem: Google cannot simply hire more people to fix more bugs (mythical man month, remember?).<p>The reality is that if you have a pet bug, that is specifically important to you, and not important to anyone, is not a security bug, and isn't a feature regular users or web devs are clamoring for, you're probably going to need to fix it yourself (or pay someone else to). Given a choice between paying an engineer to spend time fixing a bug that has no significant impact, and paying that same engineer to work on something that thousands/millions will benefit from, or something google directly benefits from, google (or any employer) is going to choose one of the latter options. That's just sensible management.