> The problem, now so drastically different from a decade ago, is not what to read/buy/eat/watch/etc., but figuring out the best thing to read/buy/eat/watch/etc

> The problem, now so drastically different from a decade ago, is not what to read/buy/eat/watch/etc., but figuring out the best thing to read/buy/eat/watch/etc. with my limited time and attention. (...) > Someone who wants to find the best freelance designer, or the best sushi restaurant, or the best NFT to buy will not find the answer on Google. This is a poor article IMHO. The reasoning is as follows: 1/ We are looking for things to consume, and we can only accept the very best of anything -- because we are busy (and, let's face it, exceptional geniuses, contrary to people from a decade ago who had all the time in the world and were far less bright); 2/ Generalist search engines can't help us, because they lack category knowledge necessary to "rank" things 3/ Only curators can help us get there. None of those points are obvious, and they don't follow from one another. Not everyone is looking for things to consume, all of the time. We don't need the very best of everything. There's no such a thing as an absolute intrinsic quality, independent of other dimensions such as availability, durability, cost, suitability for a specific purpose, etc. Mostly, it's extremely naïve to think about "curators" as infallible sources of truth. Curators can be incompetent, and they can be bought -- usually for very cheap. Eventually, the article asks: > Who curates the curators? That's an excellent question! And the answer is: Google. Google points people to Wirecutter, or Booking.com (infinitely more successful than Expedia or Yelp, and not even mentioned). Google curates the curators.