europeforvisitors - 6:57 am on Aug 3, 2005 (gmt 0)
I don't have as much problem with algo changes, but by completely removing sites, they are taking away the democracy of allowing sites a chance to compete and denying the end user the chance decide for themselves what site they want to visit and whether it is relevant.
But it's the search engine's job to show users which pages are relevant to a query. Users want search engines to filter irrelevant or low-quality pages.
And in trying to decided what sites to censor, they took out many good sites in what is being referred to as "collateral damage".
I've been a victim of collateral damage myself, so I can sympathize with people whose pages or sites may have been harmed by algorithmic hiccups or overzealous filters. But equating editorial opinion (which is what search rankings are) with "censorship" is just plain silly, and collateral damage--which inevitably occurs with every update--is likely to get fixed, at least in cases where the affected content meets Google's criteria for what should be indexed.