1) Well more than the design and the level of maturity of the programmer to withstand criticism, there's also the fact that a bug report has the fundamental flaw of any report, it's as good as it's source. I don't think it's a verifiable law, but my understanding is the dumbest people generate the dumbest bug report, and it just pollute the bug reporting system. There's also the possibility to change it's use, some people ask for feature, impossible thing, or to change all the color of the button so they are less gray... It's a human driven system, and it will always be less than perfect I think.

2) Still haven't find a good way? Well try until you succeed! You don't wanna die as a failure don't you? What if it's a requirement to have installed a successful bug reporting system to enter paradise? Yeah you'll be flying first class to hell. You know the definition of insanity is always doing the same thing and expecting different result.

3) You want an honest to god gui? Welcome to 2004, your web browser is your new operating system, yeah I know it suck.

4) Why do you look for a good bug reporting system if you don't want it to be successful? There's no bad bug report, just a bunch of blubbering idiot.

You also have to think of a general amount of expected bug report. I mean you're not gonna read 10000 bug report by yourself, you'll probably prefer to check at memory dump, diff it and find similarity in crash condition. The type of software matters too, I mean if you go for the general public, you got to expect that they'll find weak point, and alert you with vague thing like "this is th3 gay3st softwar3 3v3r".