In this .pdf document, which is just a list of Putnam-style undergraduate-level problems from various sources, the third question is as I have stated it below (up to a change of notation).
Evaluate $$I=\int_{0}^{1}\log{(x)}\log{(1-x)}\,\mathrm{d}x.$$
Feel free to take a moment to try to solve this yourself, if you have never seen it before. My answer is as follows.
In the interval $(0,1)$, we may expand $\log{(1-x)}$ as a power series: \begin{eqnarray*} \log{(1-x)} & = & -\left(x+\frac{x^{2}}{2}+\frac{x^{3}}{3}+\ldots+\frac{x^{r}}{r}+\ldots\right)\\ & = & -\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^{k}}{k} \end{eqnarray*}
Now for any $p\in\mathbb{N}$, using integration by parts we see that $$\int_{0}^{1}x^{p}\log{x}\,\mathrm{d}x = -\frac{1}{(p+1)^{2}}.$$
Combining the above results, we have: \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{0}^{1}\log{(x)}\log{(1-x)}\,\mathrm{d}x & = & \int_{0}^{1}\log{(x)}\left[-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{x^{k}}{k}\right]\,\mathrm{d}x\\ & = & -\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k}\left[\int_{0}^{1}x^{k}\log{x}\,\mathrm{d}x\right]\\ & = & \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k(k+1)^{2}}\\ & = & \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left[\frac{1}{k(k+1)}-\frac{1}{(k+1)^{2}}\right]\\ & = & \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k(k+1)}-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(k+1)^{2}}\\ & = & 1-(\frac{\pi^{2}}{6}-1)\\ & = & 2-\frac{\pi^{2}}{6}, \end{eqnarray*} where we have evaluated one of the two series at the end via a telescoping sum, the details of which I have left out, and the value of the other series is well-known.
I found the result surprising. I performed a small sanity check by attempting to sketch the graph within the interval; Wolfram|Alpha agrees with my sketch and agrees with my answer, but, to me at least, this information is uninformative about why the result is true. To be more precise, I don't understand how or why the answer relates to the original elements of the question.
My question: Is there any reason why one would expect $\pi$ to appear in this answer? Is there some tricky change of variables or some unbeknownst-to-me complex analysis way of evaluating this integral which sheds more light on the relation between it and $\zeta(2)$?
With this in mind, I should also be precise about what I am accepting as an answer:
T's & C's: If no such "deeper relation" between question and answer is apparent to anyone at all, then I will accept "it's just a coincidence" as an answer. If a connection is apparent to somebody, but it involves mathematics that you fear may be beyond me, feel free to post it anyway if you wish, and I'll do my best to understand what you've said.
By a "deeper relation", I mean any interpretation or rephrasing of the question into terms beyond elementary calculus; other areas of mathematics, or even physical interpretations, will do. Other integrals which are surprising in a similar way may also be helpful.