Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Do Google Hit Numbers Vary?

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the horse-mouth-opens dept.

The Internet 378

Supa-Fly writes "I have a question about some conflicting results with the search engine google. I did a search for "pictures of mountains" and got exactly 1 million results. My friend did the same search (from the same office)and got 1,010,000 results. A second friend did the same search as the last 2 and got 1,020,000. These have not changed and every person gets the same results each time. My question is what is up with the discrepancies on google's search results?" Since this question is hard to answer from the outside, Craig Silverstein of Google kindly supplies his best answer to this question, below.

Craig writes: "Thanks for the great question. We get this from time to time and hopefully I can clear up some of the confusion. The number of estimated pages listed to the top right of a Google search results page is indeed, an estimate. It's a good estimate but still, an estimate.

There are many reasons why one might see a difference in the estimated number of pages returned for the same query. It's most likely the queries made by your co-workers were sent to different Google datacenters in what appears to have been a round-robin fashion. The index at any given Google datacenter can change slightly over the course of a day (each index is refreshed completely every three to four weeks). Depending on which datacenter finishes a query, the estimated number of results may vary.

Without having direct access to your environment it is hard for me to tell for sure, however, I believe this is the case."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frost Poipi (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275926)

am I close nigger?

Re:Frost Poipi (-1, Redundant)

abacsalmasi (643483) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275966)

What the hell is this? Am I reading this correctly? Get rid of this please.

Re:Frost Poipi (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276026)

What the hell is this? Am I reading this correctly? Get rid of this please.

please delete abacsalmasi's post plz. He'z the nigger.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1, Funny)

Trolling Thunder (639121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275928)

Google hits YOU!

Re:IN CHINA (-1, Troll)

gambit-punjabi (606214) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276019)

They weren't allowed to use Google..instead they used eglooG. How'd they come up with such a wierd name? Who knows.

Re:IN CHINA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276131)

Yeah, that is weird, especially since it isn't Google spelled backwards.

uh... (1, Insightful)

caino59 (313096) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275936)

who cares....as long as it works...chances are you don't go past the first 2 or 3 pages.....

Re:uh... (sex) (3, Funny)

$$$$$exyGal (638164) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276063)

A friend of mine has the 250th or so (it changes daily) hit for the word 'sex', and he regularly gets 100-200 hits a day from Google and Yahoo (combined). Sometimes people (horny people) go past the first couple of pages ;-).

--naked [slashdot.org]

Peter Parker Is My Cousin (0, Troll)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276070)

Well, I'd say people who are generally interested in aspects of software engineering and programming in general are interested. It is true that most people aren't going to go past the first 2 or 3 pages so this 'bug/feature' isn't doing any negative harm BUT it's an oddity and I'm glad I've had it cleared up. I had never done such an experiment to see if the search result returns varied but now that I know that this happens, I'm glad to know why it happens. Of course, a little thought on the subject would probably lead to the conclusion that the searches must be being sent to different lookup engines since the same result going to the same DB will always return the same amount. And clearly Google is the type of enterprise that needs to have distributed data to distribute load.

So, long story short - who cares? I do.

speak for yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276079)

I make it a point to visit every search result. Do a search for "Dutch Girls" and you'll see what I mean.

Re:uh... (4, Funny)

swordboy (472941) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276144)

I have a question about some conflicting results with the search engine google. I did a search for "pictures of mountains" and got exactly 1 million results.

Steven? Is that you? [msnbc.com] Dude - you're smoking too much pot!

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275938)

first post?

First poinst bahahaasdf (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275939)

asdg asdf asdfasd fsdf s
This is a post that say la`la'laaaaaaaaaaaaa
Le` le' leeeeeeeeeeee

Google Guesses? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275941)

Woot!

TROLL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276162)

TROLL

duh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275944)

its the evil moose-women that try to rule the earth but constantly fail!

MWAHAHAHAHHA!

My results (0, Troll)

Ratfood (555205) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275949)

Results 1 - 10 of about 984,000. Search took 0.16 seconds

Re:My results (1)

ball-lightning (594495) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275977)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,010,000. Search took 0.04 seconds

The numbers seem to be consistent, I guess. Kinda of cool to have a little insight to how Google works, IMHO.

Re:My results (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276004)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,040,000. Search took 0.06 seconds.

I win by 20,000 pictures of mountains.

Re:My results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275994)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030,000. Search took 0.05 seconds

w00t!

Cool (-1, Redundant)

loply (571615) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275950)

Cool, I was intrigued to see what the answer was, its so obvious now though :)

Question Aswered (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275952)

OK, great, question answered.

Umm, why was this story posted?

OMG! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275953)

BEST ARTICLE EVER.

first emu post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275955)

posted in honor of the rustling emu feathers.

Interesting Google phenomena (5, Interesting)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275957)

Several weeks back I happened to mention a very nice new restaurant in Toronto on one of my pages, and within days shot to the #2 position on Google when searching for several variants of this restaurants name. I knew this by the fact that suddenly I was seeing closing on a hundred hits per day of people looking for this restaurant. Note that this restaurant has such a unique name that there are only around 5 pages of links in all anyways. Anyways suddenly the hits entirely stopped, and a search on Google found my page was purged from the database: Despite it being a unique name with few hits, it no longer even registered. A week later suddenly it was back in the #2 spot again.

No idea why this happened, but it is entertaining to see it vary.

Re:Interesting Google phenomena (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275970)

would you be so kind to post the exact name?

Re:Interesting Google phenomena (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276028)

he wants hits, not a /. beating

Re:Interesting Google phenomena (2, Interesting)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276056)

The interesting thing is that I really don't want hits, and never put the page up intending so (I gain no profit from people looking for this restaurant), but it just was sort of an offhanded thing where I mentioned it and due to the unique name and the exclusivity of it, suddenly got lots of hits. Didn't mention it merely because I don't intend to solicit or the like, but I thought it was interesting how the Google database seemed to rollback a transaction (albeit like a week long transaction) and didn't recover until the next spider.

Re:Interesting Google phenomena (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276047)

Bymark Restaurant.

Yes, i have no life.

Re:Interesting Google phenomena (1)

Uart (29577) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276092)

During the last presidential election my personal website, (formerly uartland.net, but now dead) was listed as #2 for "Al Gore Quotes" or some similar search. I was baffled by this as I hardly got any hits (couple hundred total).

Long story short, a couple people sent me some nasty flames in response to the mentioned quotes.

The point of all that is that Google really can't always be 100% accurate.

Huzaaaahh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275958)

Okay then. Case closed. Chalk another point up for Slashdot. *GROAN*

ooh ooh! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275968)

I got 1,030,000 hits.

I'm better than you!

nah nah poo poo ;oP

Re:ooh ooh! (0, Redundant)

cmdrBurgerBurritoNac (627726) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276027)

Wesuwts 1 - 10 of about 1,040,000. Seawch took 0.06 seconds

Amazing! (5, Insightful)

PeterClark (324270) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275973)

An "Ask Slashdot" that actually went to the source for the answer first, without the usually bad/wrong/pointless pontificating that normally goes along with it. How long can such a good thing last, I wonder.
:Peter

Re:Amazing! (4, Funny)

unitron (5733) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276059)

"How long can such a good thing last, I wonder."

The way Slashdot editors keep reposting stories? Indefinitely!

Re:Amazing! (4, Funny)

Sebby (238625) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276074)

And with all the dupes, we might start seeing more of these too!

number oddities (4, Interesting)

millette (56354) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275976)

What's really odd is searching for a few words with OR, and noticing that adding words actually lowers the numbers of results obtained.

Re:number oddities (4, Informative)

pete_p (70057) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276022)

That's because Google doesn't do boolean searches. It will ignore the or (too common a word) and ends up treating it like an and search.

Re:number oddities (4, Informative)

sparkz (146432) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276052)

Wrong. OR is a boolean operator to Google. Check the "Advanced Search" link.

OT: Your Sig (0, Offtopic)

shepd (155729) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276169)

>Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?

Perfectly fine, if you ask me. Phone have buttons. Hook me up with a phone and someone with a live brain on the other end and I'm all set. ;-)

Re:number oddities (5, Informative)

millette (56354) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276085)

Actually, if you use an uppercase OR, it will perform a boolean search. Otherwise, the search defaults to an AND, unless of course you're using doublequotes "like this" to search for a phrase.

googledance (5, Interesting)

wfmcwalter (124904) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275982)

There's a number of websites (dare I say "fansites") devoted to the study of google result variance - the so-called googledance.

this [google-dance.com] and this [webrankinfo.com]

Atleast he game an answer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275988)

I'm glad to see it.

Dude.. the story is troll post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275989)

The guy wanted people to come to the first hit on that google search. I get 1.010 as everyone would. Please do not go the the link on the first google search.

That Darn Google... (1)

Snagle (644973) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275990)

Always Picking Favorites :( . But what a lucky friend getting to look at a million and twenty thousand compared to his friends measly million. But anyways, I sure hope this doesnt seriously degrade anyones view of google....that would be kinda sad

gg:pictures of mountains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5275998)

986 000 results for me.

Re:gg:pictures of mountains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276136)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,010,000. Search took 0.04 seconds.

50% Redundant
50% Informative

Its too bad.. (5, Funny)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 11 years ago | (#5275999)

It's too bad Google doesn't have one of those things where you can watch everyone's search scrolling down the screen live. I bet there would be a lot of "pictures of mountains" searches right about now.

I think some engine had that (metacrawler)? back in the day, was fun to watch, and I believe they didnt censor it.

Re:Its too bad.. (2, Informative)

daveinthesky (608820) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276045)

We would all benefit from knowing which are the most popular searches. This, [google.com] though, is all google offers if I remember correctly.

Re:Its too bad.. (1)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276123)

yeah, and its really uninteresting when they censor it all out. Uninformative, too.

Re:Its too bad.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276156)

That's easy:
1. bukkake
2. teens
3. teen bukkake
4. bukkake teens
etc.

There might be some variations that we haven't thought of, so yes, we would all benefit!

Re:Its too bad.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276051)

excite had this feature at least as a "unpublished" url where you could see the latest search requests scroll by.

it was pretty entertaining to watch all the queries

sometimes there would be a really interesting one but most were for pop stars or porn.

Re:Its too bad.. (4, Informative)

danimal (1712) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276078)

Ah, but Google does have one....well, available at the Googleplex [aaronsw.com] .

Re:Its too bad.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276084)

sort of like in the matrix?

Re:Its too bad.. (1, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276087)

It's too bad Google doesn't have one of those things where you can watch everyone's search scrolling down the screen live. I bet there would be a lot of "pictures of mountains" searches right about now.

Try the Google Viewer [google.com] maybe?

Re:Its too bad.. (0, Troll)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276098)

D'oh! Never mind, that's not what I thought it was. I thought I saw what you described once, but this isn't it.

Re:Its too bad.. (1)

Paul Menage (36554) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276094)

It's too bad Google doesn't have one of those things where you can watch everyone's search scrolling down the screen live. I bet there would be a lot of "pictures of mountains" searches right about now.


Actually they do [hofstra.edu] . Unfortunately for those not in Silicon Valley, it's on the reception wall of their office in Mountain View ...

Re:Its too bad.. (3, Informative)

Tsuzuki (442471) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276118)

From a vague memory of the last major /. article about Google, don't they have a censored realtime display of searches scrolling behind their reception desk?

And what you're thinking of is Metaspy [metaspy.com] - it still has that uncensored option. ;D

Re:Its too bad.. (2, Informative)

mrm677 (456727) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276161)

It's too bad Google doesn't have one of those things where you can watch everyone's search scrolling down the screen live.

No, but you can have Google scroll the results of your search!! Try this, and other "Google Experiments" at http://labs.google.com [google.com]

Distributed database? (1)

ericski (20503) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276002)

If the database is distributed, results might be coming from different servers. After a certain point (so many millis?), the results are returned. This could result in the difference.

Re:Distributed database? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276105)

Yeah but one would tend to think that the indices for the results are completely replicated everywhere - in which case you would think that the number of results should be consistent.

wow, could we all have missed this? (5, Informative)

Tiber (613512) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276010)

About a month ago, someone posted this story [kuro5hin.org] over on K5 [kuro5hin.org] regarding the google dance [internet-a...manual.com] . Good to see it's run by a marketing site, I couldn't think of anyone who might have more of an interest in rankings then those bastards. :P

1,040,000 (-1, Redundant)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276014)

i rule!!!

Eureka! (5, Funny)

creative_name (459764) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276016)

No wonder I couldn't find the website I was looking for! It was in those missing 10,000 websites. If I had only gotten those and checked through them as thoroughly as I checked the other 1,010,000 then I would have certainly found it.

Humor aside, this is pretty interesting. Alot like when you vote in a poll, go back to the main /. page and the poll from last week appears. You'd think the Uber Midgets and Stealth Ninjas could get it right ;-)

First Google Haiku Post (5, Funny)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276025)

like snowflakes falling
google queries melt upon
different servers

like the wild flowers
each view of the database
unique, yet alike

and...
its that time of month
google dances, results wiggle
w00t first haiku post

Re:First Google Haiku Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276066)

You do well
-bobtheprophet

How do you "estimate" database count results ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276029)


Surely the figure should be the exact number of results and not "estimated" as either those entries exist in the database or they do not, isnt it trivial just to display the database results count as an exact figure, how can you "estimate" a database count ?

Re:How do you "estimate" database count results ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276157)

It's not your mom & pop mysql database. It's distributed datacenters receiving millions of requests simultaneously. Fucking hell you estimate that.

Best search engine (1)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276032)

I wonder if the number in the estimate has anything to do with the pages it displays...does that mean that depending on which dataserver you reach, you don't get to see those extra 10,000 or 20,000 pages, assuming you actually went that far? Or are the search hits accurate, and just the count an estimate?

Oh well...Google is still beating my photo album...I searched for pictures of mountains, and only found 3. And two of those are debatable. I'd classify one as a photo of an airplane, with a mountain on the background, and the other wasn't a mountain at all...it was a hill.

Re:Best search engine (0, Offtopic)

FleshWound (320838) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276086)

the other wasn't a mountain at all...it was a hill.
So, Google likes making mountains out of (mole)hills, eh? =)

Google Images filters (4, Interesting)

Antity (214405) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276147)

Google is still beating my photo album...I searched for pictures of mountains, and only found 3. And two of those are debatable.

Ever tried to turn off Google Images' "You-really-don't-want-to-see-this" filter?

I mean.. You were searching for "pictures" of "mountains"... Big breasts, that is? ;-) Nah.

It's "&safe=off", and people outside the US might want to change the language to English before trying to use it (hint).

Funny thing here in Germany is: The filter is ALWAYS ON, and in the German preferences, there's no option to turn it off. After you change your language to English (URL), though, there suddenly appears an option for disabling the filter... Try talking about censorship (there are not even clear rules about what exactly they are filtering, and there's no explanation why you can't turn it off over here; even worse: They don't even tell you that there IS a filter and that it's always active).

I asked Google about this, but never got a response.

Removed the word "of"... (2, Interesting)

GuidoDEV (57554) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276039)

...and got 40,000 more search results (10,010,000 to 10,050,000). "Of" isn't included in the original search anyway, so I wonder why removing it yields a different estimate.

Re:Removed the word "of"... (1)

asklepius (456552) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276099)

Also interesting:
pictures of mountains 1,010,000
mountains of pictures 1,050,000
and in both cases, of was removed from the search.

Re:Removed the word "of"... (2, Interesting)

creative_name (459764) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276102)

Probably for the same reason that the original search numbers were different for different people. As others have said, when Google removes the word 'of' it essentially treats it as if there was an 'and' there. If you remove 'of' manually it does the exact same thing.

Guido, my good man, I do believe you have witnessed first hand the not-so-elusive google-dance.

Re:Removed the word "of"... (1)

GuidoDEV (57554) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276159)

It's unlikely the google dance is occurring now:

http://dance.efactory.de/

Besides, it shouldn't cause different results from the same server.

Pictures of Mountains? No wonder (4, Funny)

sssmashy (612587) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276046)

It's simple, really... mountains are the new thing in pornography. People are snapping and posting so many pictures of naughty, erotically shaped rock formations that the number of mountain pics available worldwide on the net is rising by about 10,000 every 10 minutes.

Soon, the number of phallic granite pics worldwide will even exceed the number of Jenna Jameson facials. Quite the phenomenon, really.

*grin* (5, Funny)

Eric Seppanen (79060) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276049)

Finally, proof that all Ask Slashdot questions could be more quickly answered by simply checking with Google :)

supa-fly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276057)

Submitted by Supa-Fly.

Wasn't that the redneck geek in MTV's Real World New Orleans?

Uh, so, what's the point of this story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276067)

Question... answer... Why are we here?

"Pictures of Mountains" (0, Troll)

Jack William Bell (84469) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276071)

Ya, I bet. Mountains that come in pairs. With knobbly little tips.

Yeesh...

This is a coverup (5, Funny)

elhondo (545224) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276072)

Results have been inconsistent ever since they let those damn pigeons unionize. He's obviously covering for the union.

Real-World Application (1, Flamebait)

themaddone (180841) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276073)

Hey, maybe it would be possible to modify this technology so that whenever anyone from the RIAA or MPAA did a search for MP3 or MPG, all they'd get is Whitehouse.com [whitehouse.com]

Also cookies too (-1)

amigaluvr (644269) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276082)

Remember cookies are kept in all browsers.

When a search engine finds those relating to their advertisers or 'favored sites' those are 'extended' into a higher level.

Some results may be discarded if certain advertisers don't like you to see those competing sites.

I suspect this may be the case

Re:Also cookies too (3, Informative)

feepness (543479) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276127)

Remember cookies are kept in all browsers.

When a search engine finds those relating to their advertisers or 'favored sites' those are 'extended' into a higher level.

Some results may be discarded if certain advertisers don't like you to see those competing sites.


Uhhh, no. A domain can only see their OWN cookies.

Re:Also cookies too (1)

amigaluvr (644269) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276141)

Uhhh, no. A domain can only see their OWN cookies.

And you believe this why?

Why Do Google Hit Numbers Vary? (-1)

handybundler (232934) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276083)

Why Do Google Hit Numbers Vary?

Because they can.

Some different results (5, Interesting)

jsprat (442568) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276100)

Here's what I get:

"pictures of mountains" 986,000
"pictures of of mountains" 1,010,000
"pictures of of of mountains" 1,020,000

Two of these pages had a different top-ranked link.
Funny thing, all three times Google told me "of is a very common word and was not included in my search", but it made a difference!

Regardless of these results, Google is the best search engine. Period.

I have to wonder... (3, Interesting)

greechneb (574646) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276101)

If this is the same reason that when I search, I get a list of 7 pages, and then after getting to page 5, there are only 6 pages. I would think that they would have a cookie set saying which server they are gathering their data for each search though...

It is kind of aggrevating to be expecting 7 pages, and get only 6, I always think that the mystical disappearing page contains my wanted result though. :(

hmm... (0)

lecter,hannibal_md (595615) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276103)

I get 1,010,000... tried closing and reopening the window... no matter what I do it is always 1,010,000

Re: Google Results (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276110)

Searches for : 'pictures of mountains'

1) through no proxy (resulting in forward to google.ca as I live in Canada): 996,000

2) through guardster.com (resulting in google.com): 1,040,000

What is it you American's are getting that we in Canada are not? :)

Picture of Molehill? (0, Troll)

cranos (592602) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276115)

I don't usually complain about articles posted to ./ but I have to say this is probably the dumbest Ask Slashdot yet.

I mean a simple email to Google actually managed to solve the problem, thus negating the need to ask anyone else about the problem.

shut up, whiteboy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276116)

n/t [goatse.cx]

hahaha

Moot point? (1)

c_oflynn (649487) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276119)

But when you do the search (I got 1 010 000 results) it limits it anyway.

http://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+mountai ns&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=830&s a=N [google.com]

Even after you go to the show all results, its limited to 1000.

http://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+mountai ns&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=990&sa=N&filt er=0 [google.com]

A Convenient Explanation... Too Convenient! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5276122)

Craig Silverstein's "explanation" is compelling and fits the circumstances, but of course it would. The use of technical jargon such as "round robin" and "datacenter" is the first sign of conspiracy, and it doesn't take long before the entire facade crumbles to reveal the truth!

Craig "Silverstein", if that's his real name, is one of the very few CIA and FBI double operatives working at the agencies' Virgina TIA global computer network monitoring laboratories, and Google is one of their most brilliant covers, providing not only a convenient alibi for gathering psychological desire/search profiles on people all over the world, but the mechanism for doing so as well. The estimate numbers are simply the individual lookup tracking identifiers. That's why they're different for every individual that performs a search!

Craig "Silverstein" was also one of the guests invited to the dinner party between the Reagan / Bush Jrs. the night after the attempted assassina... one sec, a van just pulled up outsi

1,320 (1)

I_am_Rambi (536614) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276129)

I get less with the phrase "pictures of mountains" (including quotes), I get an estimate of 1,320. The estimate also has to deal with quotes and the logic behind google (AND logic or is it OR logic).

end user's perspectives on the matter... (3, Funny)

MacOS_Rules (170853) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276140)

bevis: Huh-huh. They said *mountains*. Huh-huh.

*smack*

butt_head: They are slashdot. They make such references to screw up the google database, thus completly validating their newstories. Inevitable reposts will bump the number even higher!

bevis: like a conspiracy. huh-huh

butt_head: conspiracies are cool!

sporophyte (-1, Offtopic)

bongobongo (608275) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276143)

my site is the number 3 google hit for sporophyte and it's not even about plants mwahahaha

god bless g00gle, whatever the specifics of its ranking system are :)

There is only one way to solve this... (1, Interesting)

SystematicPsycho (456042) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276148)

google fight! [googlefight.com]

It's the answer to every problem.

Clearly the answer is (-1, Offtopic)

BeesTea (580793) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276149)

that pigeons can't count.

why worry? (0)

melloncollienet (578769) | more than 11 years ago | (#5276160)

The figure I'm seeing is "display 1-x of about xxx,xxx,xxx".

That result was generated in fractions of a second, searching 3,083,324,652 webpages.

I'd guess there might be some caching techniques for searches that are repeatedly hit - and it's just possible that the future searches were able to dig deeper in the archives.

Click through the links and count just to be sure that there were a million, million + 10k.

The other explanation is bizzare programming logic creeping in...

Don't worry, you have far too much time on your hands in your office.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?