I ask this question as both an SEO and a web user.

I am very much into my Formula 1 at the moment, even to the point that I get up at 'stupid o'clock' to watch the qualifying and the race - because I live in the UK, the first batch of races are taking place early in the morning. Not great after a Saturday night out getting up at 7.00am, but I am digressing.

In the UK everyone knew at the end of the 2008 season that F1 was moving from ITV to the BBC in 2009, and I think most people were happy because it meant no ad breaks, and no missing exciting action during those breaks.

And the BBC seem to be doing a great job with both the TV and web coverage of this sport.

Recently, I decided to check the times for the Chinese Grand Prix on 19th April and typed the usual 'F1' into Google.co.uk with the following results:

1. www.formula1.com
2. www.itv-f1.com
3. www.f1-live.com
4. www.f1-live.com/en/
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One
6. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h1/motorsport/formula_one/7996698.stm

What surprised me was two things:

1. That the BBC site didn't rank higher - it should be the place to find a lot of coverage of the sport.
2. When it did rank, a news story, not the F1 homepage, was the result.

So, my question is, should search engines make exceptions for sites that are not ranking well and artificially move them up the rankings?

Isn't it in the search engines' best interests to present the most relevant results to users? Surely the BBC coverage is more comprehensive this year than last, particularly with the BBC, at least in the UK search results, being seen as an authority for a range of topics. What do you think?