In many ways, "I'm feeling lucky" was a great middle ground - by clicking it you're implictly saying "I know this might not actually be what I'm looking for, but I'm willing to compromise". Google has taken that compromise and stuck it at the top of the search results page.
Google Search is already where it should be. Yet Google Search employs thousands of incredibly expensive engineers. Something has to be done, and that "something" is rarely going to be good, and almost guaranteed to be something nobody actually wanted.
It's pretty simple: a list of search results does not imply certainty. Injecting a single "answer" does. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's as if they have decided that the "I'm feeling lucky" button should apply to everyone.
If I search for "how tall is tom cruise" and it gives me a number. It doesn't say that number is an absolute answer, it doesn't say that it's verified, it just shows the number.
I personally don't see that as any different than if it returned a few websites, all of which say the same thing when I go to them. In all cases it's "Google" giving me the answer (an evil google could just as easily return websites with false results on purpose), but the way it currently works, it gives me the answer faster and in a better format. And even if that answer isn't 100% factually correct or verified in any way, it's still the same quality I would have gotten from google in any other method.
If the answer is the same using both methods, wouldn't the only real solution to be "refuse to answer the question"?
imdb was sued for revealing a person's age; and while imdb won the case, a law in california was passed that dealt with the matter. what happens if google displays information about you that you feel is private (or some legal jurisdiction asserts is so)?
i noticed that "what should i do if bitten by a snake" does have attribution. however, it seems to me that the information is presented in a "this is the answer" way, ie as trustworthy and actionable... what happens if following whatever google suggests results in harm or death?
either way, i'm surprised google hasn't bothered to add couching language or some notional caveats. (even a "here's what we found:" seems reasonable distancing.)
Because it is useful, makes users happy, and generates revenue. There really isn't another useful standard to apply here.
...accuracy?