Are you really trying to imply that Google does shitty software? Based on a single failure of spam/obscenity filter? Your reality distortion field must be really powerful.
I'm happy to make that argument. We are talking about a site with user comments that allowed unescaped HTML [1].
One of the frustrating things about using Google services is that over the years it has become apparent what a mess the user accounts backend is. There must be a dozen or more different 'types' of youtube accounts (depending on age, if they opted in or out of various levels of gmail/g+ integration over the years etc), so it's no wonder the attempts to consolidate and merge that mess has been so buggy (although I can see why they are desperate to simplify the situation). With the high staff turnover at Google, who at Youtube still remembers the difference between an account that opted to be tied to a gmail account in 2009 and one that didn't? (I think at some point that latter became impossible; I seem to remember that I lost access to my oldest YouTube account because I kept refusing to provide email and/or phone number information and in the end they just killed that type of account).
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/pranksters-have-a...
As it is now, your comment states the following:
Google did some software with bugs and bad UX => Google does shitty software.
I can't argue against this for quite obvious reasons :)
Does it say anything about the overall software quality of a corporation that employs more than 45 000 people? No, it doesn't.
I'm sorry if you work at Google and feel personally insulted by this, but Google have put out a lot of crappy software. Good software too, but your original argument seemed to be that Google is so magnificent that they don't have any shoddy products at all, and the very idea was unthinkable. That is clearly false.
1. I never stated that Google software is magnificent. I stated that it is ridiculous to judge a corporate giant with thousands of engineers by pointing to a bad bug created by one team.
2. I do not work at Google anymore. And my view of the company is worse after my employment there. But I reserve my criticism for issues that I consider to be really important like NSA spying or limiting keyword search data to website owners.
3. I feel personally offended with all the emotional FUD that is going on what is assumed to be one of the best discussion forums on the internet.
As a counterexample, most comments on Slashdot are far from ideal, but Slashdot has long had filters in place to prevent obvious trolling such as these. Given /.'s OSS-friendliness in general, I'm sure they would have given Google these filters, if Google had only asked.
Worse. It's doing shitty text mining, which is something they usually do pretty well at (seeing it's their core competency).
No-one complains when Apple messes up their cloud data storage (well, they do, but most people just say "OK, local storage + Dropbox still works"), but if the next iOS looked like a late 90s Java UI it wouldn't be a good sign.
That's why I did not make that claim. The NLP talent at Google is likely better than that at any other company or university. My claim is that their expertise is not used for filtering Youtube comments.
BTW you did make a claim that Slashdot would give filters to Google so there is that.
You have been arguing that pissing off the user base doesn't matter, but there is a real cost. Fighting your users means things like people not reporting spam anymore, or deliberately misreporting things that aren't spam.