Let me argue why I think this is patent is not too bad, and actually interesting in some ways not typically discussed.

First here's the broadest claim (formatted for readability):

A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, where the instructions for creating the special event logo includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images;

instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating to the special event;

instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page;

instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the special event based on the user selection.

It's certainly not revolutionary, but patents rarely are. It was filed in 2001 and finally issued in 2011, being rejected multiple times along the way. That may have been partly due to them trying to claim too much and partly the "reject by default" unofficial policy then-director Dudas had instituted within the USPTO during his reign. (Patent practitioners encouraged to chime in here.) Nevertheless, what has emerged is not really too bad (for a certain perspective of "bad") because it's a) pretty narrow, and thus, b) highly unlikely to infringe by mistake. As such, this is not a good example of the patent system being broken, even though at first glance it does not seem very novel.

But I could also make an argument for novelty! Google Doodles probably is pretty novel because Google was -- as far as I can tell -- the first company to systematically modify its logo this way. Sure, several brands modify their logos once in a while, e.g. during Christmas, but Google took it to a whole new level, and in doing so, cultivated a fun and carefree personality for their brand. There's an interview with an early Google employee where he says he was horrified by this practice because it went against everything he was taught in Brand Management 101. I know nothing about brand management, but if true, it makes a case for non-obviousness. Furthermore, this undoubtedly system fulfills the title of the patent, because many people, including myself, often visit the Google homepage just to check out the doodles. It's undeniably a beneficial feature for their business.

Unfortunately, "systematically modifying a company logo to create a fun-loving brand perception" is not what they patented. For various reasons, such as being a business method and a rather abstract concept, such a claim would be difficult to get through. (Yes, even in the USPTO.) Maybe they tried anyway, which may be why it took 10 years to issue. But what they actually got was the claim above, which is simply a collection of steps to change the company logo during special events and link it to search results that really only applies to web search engines. It says nothing of the execution and artistic chops required to pull it off properly. It says nothing about brand management and the unique brand perception it created. There are only certain things a patent can protect.

And I'm honestly not sure why Google worked so hard to protect this with a patent. There are easier ways to inflate a portfolio, and even if we assume it to be a "good" patent, it's worthless. Because after 10 years and tens of thousands of dollars put in, Google now has a patent that nobody else will infringe simply because it's something that probably only Google can pull off with their brand.