That was a weird example to me. Google, although it ends up returning seo spam like w3schools, usually surfaces good SO answers, which are imo (and I think generally recognized as) the best answers that also contain discussion and caveats, if warranted. It's considered bad practice already to just cut/paste the SO answer unthinkingly. The only thing worse would be to do the same thing with whatever this search engine dragged out of w3schools.
There are lots of criticisms of google search, but in this case, I think the Google result is better - anyone looking regularly for answers is conditioned to tune out the Geeksforgeeks and w3schools and other spam, so as long as good SO answers are from and center, I think google wins
It's a middle man is all imo. I have actually used it for css stuff, but for python (as a python programmer), I want SO or the actual documentation , so its annoying when what I consider ad-driven content gets in the way of my search.
I can tell you why I hate them... explanations are usually incomplete or wrong in some cases. Examples often use antiquated browser code when the answer should just be vanilla JS. They don't use best practices... like ever. They don't generally use modern code (don't use arrow functions or continute to use var). MDN is pretty much better in every way.
For CSS and Javascript I've found MDN to be more comprehensive.
I do use w3schools for SQL syntax though - I haven't found any better resource for this, and generally Google gives me MSDN articles about TSQL which are usually of no use to me.
There are lots of criticisms of google search, but in this case, I think the Google result is better - anyone looking regularly for answers is conditioned to tune out the Geeksforgeeks and w3schools and other spam, so as long as good SO answers are from and center, I think google wins