@AC: "What about sites that post lots of photos ...?"
This doesn't matter. What most people do not realize, is that browsers do not fetch complete pages, but files. Google only fetches the html file, and never fetches images.
@jeanl: "I prefer Google invest some valuable time to invent the wheel to warn people which searched links are potential dangerous"
Google already does not. Except they just bury dangerous sites. The GooleBot detects all forms of dangerous sites, and doesn't even index them.
@Camilla Smythe: "Wonder what Phorms DPI multiple re-direct cookie spooging bucket of vomit does to site load times?"
Nothing that Google can see. Phorm is used is employed close to the users, not at the hosting servers. Google is peered with most large hosting networks. And your crappy Phorm using ISP probably just wished that they knew how to host content.
@Da Weezil: "Google is becoming less and less useful as time goes by. First and foremost - I want my results relevant to my search term, not corrupted by paid placings or speed ratings"
As someone who has spent time trying to climb the search ranks... there is too much relevance right now. There are thousands and thousands of pages that make each common search term, so there needs to be a tie-breaker, or something to give a better site an edge of thousands of others. And as far as the paid links, the prominence of those hasn't changed, so the "less useful as time goes by" is simply false. And besides, it is freetard thinking a multibillion dollar infrastructure can be supported without making any money. I guess by anyone except for MS, but that is because all of your Windows and Office revenue is shoveled into Live Search. Oops, it is called Bing now. Maybe it will make money someday.