His point, and something I agree with, is that the easier gamification becomes, the less useful a search engine becomes.

I don't know if this is true for everyone. It probably isn't. (at least it isn't immediately obvious.)

But for the author it is, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Some search engines, e.g. Google 7 years ago, are less un-equal than others, e.g. Google today.

The job of a search engine is to second-guess your desire from limited inputs and try to fulfill it. I can't think of any sane way to be "equal" about that without relying on a lot of subjective judgments. Or being bad at making decisions.

Is the strategic priority of Google leadership a subjective judgement? Are these subjective judgements objectively implemented? There are always winners and losers for any given ranking algorithm, the question is whether perception of neutrality has improved or declined in the last 7 years.

What is the perception of Google's neutrality in enforcement of rules against traffic arbitrage, e.g. search toolbars: http://www.benedelman.org/news/012213-1.html ?

Almost anyone who loses out will perceive things as being subjectively against them. Almost anyone who wins will perceive it as being a sign of their worthiness and objective value.

Yeah, but who is making those decisions?

Google? SEO agents? Large multinational corporations?

Wikipedia is subjective too, that doesn't mean that they just give in and let PR people manage the thing.

Among other things, they pay attention to whether or not the user comes back to look at results again. So in a significant way, it's the market.