[thephyber]

> But the root of the problem is that google is not a perfect and unbiased representation of the web.

This is an unreasonable expectation for any product of any company, let alone the biggest general purpose search engine of the web. The reason spamming / SEO gaming doesn't work much right now (there is a ceiling to the effectiveness) is because Google actively biases their results against what they consider abusers.

I would argue there are other search engines that have attempted an "unbiased index of the web" and Google was a superior experience.

I don't deny that there are problems (I wish Google stopped preventing email address searches and lots of classes of Google Dorks from working), but I don't think your prescription improves anything.

[the_omegist]

Sure, I agree that's not an easy thing to do, perhaps even too idealistic. But what you mention (counter-SEO gaming) isn't the type of "bias" I was referring to. Correcting their algorithm to make it better at filtering spamming, etc is part of making their product useful in the first place. Otherwise their search engine would be as useful as a car without wheels.

But, to keep the analogy, it would be like a car maker tweaking the speedometer to make the drivers go slower "to save lives" without telling its clients. If Google clearly showed its list of "socially acceptable" search terms , I would have no problem with it. But it's the fact they pretend (or that it's generally admitted) that they don't tweak their search results that I dislike.

For example: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-interferes-with-its-...