Google - the content producer?
tedvalentin.com
tedvalentin.com
Search instead for "sushi review stockholm" and the cited website is the first result and there is no google map at the top, because the search does not indicate to google that the first priority is to simply find sushi places and nothing else.
Now if google was artificially placing gmail, or google docs, or any of their other service products that are not themselves presenting search results, above the competition for generic search terms; that would be a problem. The behaviour cited in the post is simply the best way for google to provide search results. Google maps is a core search technology, just like google image search, books, video etc. You can't use anti-monopoly rules to handicap the dominant product itself. Especially when all the competition (search providers) considers the same behaviour to be part of their core search service as well.
That webpage could well be the Google Maps website; and to level the playing field, Google could use a similar blue-link to the Google Maps page that highlights sushi places (or alternatively, show a map from the author's website).
I wouldn't, however, hold my breath. On the Internet, it's NEVER going to be completely fair. If they could, simple, personal geocities-based recipe sites would prevent AllRecipes and BBC from taking over "their" expertise (some of those old homepages had seriously awesome recipes!)
[Citation needed]
Presumably if you're correct, and users aren't actually looking for the google maps interface, they'll skip it and move to the web results. Users have now come to expect this behavior from Google when they type in local search queries.
Of course it is possible to have better results for certain queries. Is it even remotely plausible for google to reliably decide that? To my knowledge, not without solving some very difficult problems, which they may or may not have any motivation to do, but they are certainly under no obligation to do it either.
Perhaps, as the submitter mentions in another comment here, Google could form a partnership, but that would require massive organization to set up. Even if they just wanted to form a partnership with all sushi listing websites in major cities, that would still require a lot more effort on Google's part for a benefit of...what? Better listings for sushi, yes, but would it be worth the trouble for them to index it all?
Not only that, I EXPECT Google Maps results to be at the top of the mobile search view, if only because I don't want to have to find a suitable web site for which better data might be found. What if the top web site on Google's results was bunk (this happens more often than not), and then it was SushiKartan? I'd have to look at the top result, learn it was horrible, then click the second in hopes of it being relevant (it probably is not).
Basically, while this guy actually DOES have the best information, Google doesn't necessarily know that, and neither does its users. I don't want to waste my time looking for quality results ALL the time.
As an aside I expected to see some form of ad placement on the Sushikartan site that would help support my concept. No such luck. Not sure how it generates revenue.
Regarding Sushikartan's revenue, it's not entirely clear but I believe there is no direct revenue from Ted's map sites (he has a lot of similar sites to Sushikartan). He has a few maps sites with partners which probably brings in some revenue, but I think it is a traffic and reputation that is the main goal. Ted already had an exit a few years back, moderately sized but very good for a one-man shop.
I am not sure whether this argument holds, since the Google Search itself defines, what is a "good material" and rank it.