@sdtechi
Yes, in theory, that would make for a better search engine. In practice though google values popularity far higher than quality, because that's much easier to do. For example, most original authors rank far lower than non-authoritative sources like wikipedia. Wikipedia are a treasure trove of high quality links to high quality authors, but google doesn't officially recognize any of them due to their no-follow policy.
While we're at it, I find these “Panda” updates to be full of unintended consequences. I appreciate google's intention of getting rid of “spammy” links, but when the web reacts to these penalties (both real and perceived), SEO companies react by running through lists of links and having them removed. Now I don't know whether having these links removed will factually raise google rankings or not (so far though the anecdotal evidence from my clients would be a resounding “no”). However I'd assert that at least some of those links removed for SEO purposes were actually valuable for humans navigating the web.
I really wish SEO services were unnecessary at all, but they were born into existence due to the fact that search engine rankings are just as important to success as internal factors. A high quality website means nothing without rankings. For better or worse, the network effects are extremely strong with google, top ranking sites get more views and links because they are on top, solidifying their high position.
I really don't know what the answer is. Hypothetically, even if a …