>This point of view is value-destroyingly cynical.

Value for who?

That may be true, but that doesn't make it incorrect. In fact, I do believe that it is in fact value-destroyingly cynical for technical people working in the valley; the current upswing in the business cycle (at least here in silicon valley) much like the first dot-com, is largely predicated on the idea that we are building the new advertising industry, and the technologies we are building for that new advertising industry make us dramatically more effective than the old advertising industry. so yeah, if you work in the area, you have a personal interest in others believing that targeted ads deliver a lot of value to the advertiser without subtracting too much value from the consumer. (I personally feel that the 'ads add value for the consumer' viewpoint that many googlers seem to espouse is so transparently self-serving as to be silly and ignorable[1].)

>That's like saying teaching in school is useless, because if I need to know something, I'll ask someone.

The difference here is the difference between asking for advice from a disinterested third party, and asking for advice from someone who gets money if you choose one choice over another - a salesman.

It's the fundamental problem with using ads to pay for search; The user of the search wants to find the most relevant answer; the provider of the search wants the user to find the most relevant answer that the provider is getting paid for. This is a fundamental conflict of interest.

I'd compare this with going to a VAR[2] for technical advice. The VAR may be run by someone technically way more competent than you are, but the VAR is paid by the people who sell you stuff. I mean, maybe the SAN that pays the best commission is also the best SAN for your needs... but maybe not, and if not, then that VAR has a conflict between choosing the highest commission for themselves and choosing the best solution for you (which would increase their reputation, and perhaps lead to larger, more profitable sales down the line.)

I mean, I'm not saying the VAR is always going to choose the short-term money over the long-term reputation... but there is a conflict, and most people seem to think that one should usually rely primarily on sources other than the salesperson for information about a big purchase.

[1]absurd claims (in your favor) weaken your position by showing disrespect for the intellect of your counterparty.

[2]In the corporate IT world, there's a 'general salesperson/technical help picking the right product to buy' role, called the VAR... the Value Added Re-seller. The difference between a VAR and a salesman is that a regular salesman works for one company; he can only sell, say, netapp products. The advantage of the VAR is that s/he can sell netapp, emc, and nexentia products, and get a commission for each. The idea is that the VAR will be more likely to steer you to an appropriate product for your needs than a salesman from one manufacturer. But it's still a salesman/woman.

(note, the other VAR role is just plain re-seller... manufacturers offer products to VARs at a discount, so some VARs will just sell you the product at below-list price, without "adding value")