tomscharbach I was wanting to reply to this over a week ago, but some major stuff happened, and I'm just now getting back to semi-normal.
I fully agree with everything you said. Also, to me, Hershel's words are accurate, and thus honorable. My personal preferences are for accuracy, regardless of topic and original source.
Related to this thread's topic of misinformation is a very uncomfortable problem: what should a person (or search engine) do when all sides of a topic are wrong? About thirteen years ago I wrote a historiography (if there were a world's worst seller list, then surely the book would be on it) that was about a child born to a Jewish Russian family who immigrated to the USA near the end of the 19th century. For over twenty years the family gained a lot of publicity from the press (sensationalized fake news), and today you can easily find books, science articles (e.g. American Psychological Association (APA), etc.), all major news sources, and hundreds of websites that make wild claims of the child's precocity that could not have possibly been true, while simultaneously speaking negatively about the child (the child was no genius as the news media claimed, but he was also no failure as the same news media claimed). The misinformation and disinformation has fed upon itself ("peer review") from one generation to the next, to where now, except for the individual's name, the child's life is almost entirely a fable.
And to me, that is a problem that is not easily solved. Freedom of opinion is extremely important (everyone is different, and thus it is a physics impossibility for everyone to have the same thoughts), but when a wrong opinion is promoted and perpetuated, the behavior harms innocent people for believing the wrong opinion to be true truth. But on the flip side of the same coin, in the 19th century a fellow wrote extensively on an ancient topic, and though the individual caused grief and great ignorance for billions of people because of his words being false, still if it were not for the bad man having accumulated numerous historical documents, much of mankind's greatest history (ancient texts) may have been forever lost. The bad man's bad behavior accidentally resulted in the preservation of treasures.
The choice is easy: everyone ought to think and to analyze all topics for themselves, and to not believe anything without verifiable evidence acquired through personal firsthand observation. (W. K. Clifford stated similarly.) But too often it seems that relatively few people do that.
A few days ago I began a renewed investigation of search engines and their most recent preferences. The project will take at least a month (already I am finding some sizable changes (e.g. searches for "Linux" and "Solus" are now almost nonexistent on Bing, which will also affect DDG)), but the biggest change so far to me is of how a preponderance of Internet users are phrasing their keywords; a new generation has arrived, along with the natural slang that relates directly to - and is only understood by - the new generation.
Cat's meow, plucked chicken, everything-plus, and cool are now out, and in their place is a whole new language of slang and sentence structuring. Laughing at myself, maybe it's time for me to admit SEO defeat because I have no idea how to apply the new slang as keywords. ๐