I wrote this a few weeks ago on HN but your argument is missing consideration for Google's "Page Quality Score" (PQS) algorithm - which is designed to provide a

I wrote this a few weeks ago on HN but your argument is missing consideration for Google's "Page Quality Score" (PQS) algorithm - which is designed to provide at least some layer of quality / $$$-bias-arbitration.(1) In short they believe that the most reliable way to drive search relevancy / quality EVEN in paid categories is to make sure the guy on the other end of the table is willing to pay for that user's attention. QPS is designed to penalize the advertiser if they don't hit "relevancy" metrics which makes it more expensive for that advertiser to reach you - as a percentage it can make clicks literally 600% more expensive (worst case). The relevancy metrics they'll use include page speed (good for user), time user spends on site (relevancy), actions taken - tracked by Google Analytics (relevancy), and content quality / uniqueness (relevancy). If you've got a guy willing to pay with high relevancy it's a compelling reason to show nothing but ads. Now is that REALLY good for the user across the board? No way. But there's at least a superficial effort to arbitrage the $$$ bias. (1) Google's PQS documentation https://storage.googleapis.com/support-kms-prod/8E4C3B33697E35B1582E827EF55E6DA01A3A https://storage.googleapis.com/support-kms-prod/8E4C3B33697E... (2) http://searchengineland.com/minimum-quality-score-can-save-money-adwords-226757 http://searchengineland.com/minimum-quality-score-can-save-m... (3) Google's PQS update broken down https://www.convirza.com/resources/the-impact-of-googles-recent-quality-score-update/ https://www.convirza.com/resources/the-impact-of-googles-rec...