Maybe the problem is that PageRank (or whatever they call it these days) has run its course. I mean, it supposed to gauge "what humans think is good", but it's failing miserably. It's indeed time for a more curated, artisanal, web.
What gives me pause here is all the anecdotes in this thread about other engines getting results right. If the real answer is "PageRank has been successfully flooded by bots", then everyone would have bad results.
What I suspect, off nearly no evidence, is that Google is using ad tracking to inform a notion of search relevancy. My nearly unjustified belief is that that system is the one being flooded by bots.
Piracy is gone, but you will find hundreds of automatically generated credit card phishing sites full of Google Ads, sometimes promising pirated versions but serving a trojan, sometimes showing a credit card form. Some of them are on the first page, sometimes before legitimate websites.
But look at it another way: you have lots of humans writing - and it's all of varying quality. Why not let the humans decide what's good? The early Web was curated by humans, who kept directories, Smart.com 'expert' pages, websites and blogrolls that tried to show where quality could be found. Google's bot war (and the idea that Google is the sole authority on quality) eliminated these valuable resources as collateral damage.