At 13 I was not looking for reasons not to like what had been my favorite movie because I wanted to feel superior to Steven Spielberg, who was the only director I knew by name.
But watching the movie several times, as I did, because I loved it, I noticed a lot of these (but by no means most of them). I didn't say it made the movie bad. It's sloppy.
A filmmaker as good as Spielberg should be expected to do better. I think the sloppiness in this film is indicative of Spielberg's attitude toward his mainstream audiences in the wake of Empire of the Sun. I think he put a lot of effort into his "grownup" movies (Schindler's List) and tossed off his mainstream films as quickly as possible (War of the Worlds, Indy 4) regardless of their quality. The exception is Jurassic Park, with its technological challenge keeping his interest. You can see this not only in the continuity errors and plot holes, but also the laziness and infantilization of the characterizations (is Raiders the last Spielberg action film to not have a child protagonist, if you don't count River Phoenix and the Henry/Indy dynamic in Last Crusade?)