Sometimes researchers investigate boring questions like "what is the carbon emissions impact of doing this thing?" Just because you don't think the question is interesting doesn't mean the answers aren't relevant to somebody, or that finding some answers isn't increasing our understanding of the field in some way.
There are all kinds of research papers; they aren't always describing some new clever trick no one thought of before. Sometimes it's just "hey, we had this question we wanted to know the answer to and so we did some investigation and some math and figured it out." As long as they're questions that some other people somewhere are asking, there's no reason why a respectable conference or journal wouldn't accept such a paper. It's up to them and the reviewers to decide whether the content is a good fit for that venue. If it isn't, it'll get rejected; no reason for Google to involve themselves in the decision.
How rigorously the authors treated these questions in the paper is something we don't know without being able to see the paper itself.
There are all kinds of research papers; they aren't always describing some new clever trick no one thought of before. Sometimes it's just "hey, we had this question we wanted to know the answer to and so we did some investigation and some math and figured it out." As long as they're questions that some other people somewhere are asking, there's no reason why a respectable conference or journal wouldn't accept such a paper. It's up to them and the reviewers to decide whether the content is a good fit for that venue. If it isn't, it'll get rejected; no reason for Google to involve themselves in the decision.
How rigorously the authors treated these questions in the paper is something we don't know without being able to see the paper itself.