Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a classic case of "once a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric" To clarify, Google defines the metrics by which pages are ranked in their search results, and since everyone want to be at the top of Google's search results, those metrics immediately become targets for everyone else. It's quite clear to me that the metrics Google have introduced over the year have been meant to improve the qualit…
In a bit broader sense this situation is created by "enshitification", term coined by Cory Doctorow. Google itself, as a platform, has an incentive to rank higher sites that produce more ad spend. Googles has no incentive to rank "good" (by whatever definition) sites high, that do not spend money on ads themselves or do not contain ad space.
And if no one is using the search engine, who's gonna see all those ads?
Of course, they do have other incentives too, some of which are directly conflicting with high quality search results, as you point out.
I suppose one could argue that their near-monopoly in the search business has allowed them to be somewhat negligent on the quality of search, but now that there are a few competitors at least somewhat worthy of the name, one can hope high quality results will be a higher priority.
Anyway, I'm holding out hope someone will one day manage to train a LLM to distinguish between quality content and SEO bullshit, and then put that to use in a search engine.
I'm not well versed enough in the current status of LLM's to make a prediction on how hard that will be, but my impression is that we're a fair ways off from any LLM being able to do that well enough to be valuable.
I'd really love to be proven wrong on this one, if you're reading this and have some relevant experience, consider yourself challenged! (feel free to rephrase this last bit in your head to whatever motivates you the most)