-- Goodhart's Law.
Google's algorithms didn't create this situation; people chasing high Google rankings did. Had Google used completely different algorithms yet became equally dominant, people still would have poured their hearts and souls into getting higher rankings.
Basically, an application of the tragedy of the commons. Or: "why we can't have nice things".
Then Google came along and we all found it a lot more convenient than the bad search engines we were used to. And of course, we all know where that led. In some sense, Google built an 8-lane superhighway and bypassed all the small towns.
We all traded away paradise in exchange for convenience. Now we have neither.
It's just fragmented - i.e., catering to a specific group. Because if it isn't, it's awesome for 5 minutes and then monetization rot sets in.
[1] None of these work for everyone; conversely, all of these are seen as great things by some and have people who prefer that one thing over others for its quality.
You're technically right. You'd be more right if you said people chased the highest spots on search engines for the widest breadth of queries.
If there were implicit alphabetical ordering of search results I guarantee you'd end up a bias toward A's, Z's or otherwise in people trying to get top spots.
But lowkey Google incentivized such behaviour by not being open and transparent on how exactly their algorithms work.
It's also dangerous to ask for the exact criteria because they are ever changing. Google et al don't want to be prescriptive about what a good site is, they want to recognize what a good one is. You make a good one, they'll figure out how to recognize it.
They can't sit down and publish "The Definitive Guide to a Good Website". That's just not their role and it will be out of date before it's published.