I just don't agree with this trope that Google is "bad" or even quantitatively "worse". It's almost always based on: 1. Ads in search results. I don't agree wi

I just don't agree with this trope that Google is "bad" or even quantitatively "worse". It's almost always based on: 1. Ads in search results. I don't agree with the premise that ads are necessarily bad. Someone selling a thing may be the best result for a search. As long as ads are labelled as such I'm fine with this; 2. Anecdotes. I can match you anecdote for anecdote; 3. Personalization: it depends on what's included but knowing you're in Chicago changes what's most relevant when yous earch for "auto repair shop"; and 4. Astroturfing, content farms and SEO gaming. To me this is the biggest problem and will be forever an arms race. The article touches on this. It's really a product of views (ie display advertising) and clicks (ie affiliate programs) generating revenue and any search engine will have this problem. The lesson you should take from using "site:reddit.com" or "reddit" or any other term to Google search like this is evidence of just how hard search is. The 21st century is littered with the corpses of dead "Google killer" search startups. The article (correctly IMHO) mentions Reddit doesn't get as much attention SEO-wise and that's actually what can make it useful but it misses the main point: there are communities that form around niche topics (eg vacuum cleaners) that are generally resistant to astroturfing.