Many people have been upvoting my comments here so the evidence I am seeing suggests that I haven't lost too many friends here with this line of thinking.
Continuing out the logic of your suggestion here, you would seem to imply that every other currently existing search engine besides Google also has bad quality as well in this regard. I say this because if other search engines had better quality that Google, they would be doing better than Google as per your suggestion. But, obviously Google is on top in a big way, so I have to ask, do you think the entire search engine industry, not just Google, has poor quality search results? What do you know that they don't?
Knucklehead: But, obviously Google is on top in a big way, so I have to ask, do you think the entire search engine industry, not just Google, has poor quality search results? What do you know that they don't?
Me earlier: larger issue is I'd acknowledge some search results just aren't what I in particular want but I'd claim other results are actually objectively low quality
It seems like you just a kind of "shtick". Anyone talking about quality, no how much nuance they add to it, gets thrown the same "how do you your ideas of quality are right". I already mentioned that quality is piece of Google formula and Google spend real money attaining that, employs thousands of people to rate search quality. Of course I'm not claiming to be a personal expert on quality. You can read further what I actual wrote above.
Continuing out the logic of your suggestion here, you would seem to imply that every other currently existing search engine besides Google also has bad quality as well in this regard. I say this because if other search engines had better quality that Google, they would be doing better than Google as per your suggestion. But, obviously Google is on top in a big way, so I have to ask, do you think the entire search engine industry, not just Google, has poor quality search results? What do you know that they don't?