"The best doctors are the quickest to Google."
"The best scientists are the quickest to Google."
"The best engineers are the quickest to Google."
Are the above statements true? Quite possibly. I would argue that the best in their fields are those writing the answers that are indexed by Google to be found by others.
However, usually the best in their fields are also good at using Google. Unfortunately, the worst in their fields also use Google extensively, so it's not a strong signal.
EDIT: My definition of "best" is admittedly very subjective. The author could define "best" as "most effective", for exmaple. My only point is that you shouldn't use Googling to determine who is "best" because the "worst" also can be quick to use Google. It's a useless signal. More situationally appropriate metrics should be used instead.
Are the above statements true? Quite possibly. I would argue that the best in their fields are those writing the answers that are indexed by Google to be found by others. However, usually the best in their fields are also good at using Google. Unfortunately, the worst in their fields also use Google extensively, so it's not a strong signal.
EDIT: My definition of "best" is admittedly very subjective. The author could define "best" as "most effective", for exmaple. My only point is that you shouldn't use Googling to determine who is "best" because the "worst" also can be quick to use Google. It's a useless signal. More situationally appropriate metrics should be used instead.