My first reactions: the method of investigation is statistical. The model "diverse" vs. "curated" is a very simple model. "Finding as many articles as possible" is not a scientific process criterion - finding the RIGHT articles at the RIGHT time (sounds like knowledge management) is the issue...I am inclined to think this is stupid. May work on a formal answer/reply. What do you think? Could also be interpreted (conspiracy theory!) as "Google [mass information] mindset rules the scientific world too, now"...

Background: I frequently "rage against the dying light" when it comes to Google Scholar - I even put it in my research methods online pre-course. Students want to use it and I tell them they should not use it because (most of them) lack the ability to distinguish between validated and not validated sources. The "curating" algorithm that Google uses is not known (commercial secret). It does not matter if Google finds more entries because there is no (known) baseline, which invalidates the statistical investigation. There is a similar (not search-related) problem with Wikipedia, of course.

Update: a colleague, Prof. Dörrenbächer, recently published a citation analysis using Google Scholar, Scopus and Web Of Science, too - interesting paper (different focus) that confirms my hesitations towards Google Scholar: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AhEvK3qWokrvhMNYRkzfuCVNppEhsg?e=F4EncS

The retailer denies there is any widespread issue with the software, but a group expressed frustration—and public health concerns.