I was messing around with searches on google the other day and thought "hey i want to see that 393,000,000th answer." so i scanned down, went to the last page.
About page 55 i realized this was getting old. So i went to the url bar and changed it manually (heres an example)
http://www.google.com/search?q=dog&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=540&sa=N
that 540 is the lowest search on that page. ("this page displayes results of 541 - 550").
i changed it to
http://www.google.com/search?q=dog&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=1000000&sa=N
and hit enter
then i got this:
"Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. (You asked for results starting from 1000000.)"
Its not much of a lie, but it is interesting. Why tell the searcher that there are so many results when they will not give over 1000? Other search engines have been noticed doing the same thing, some even making up the values given. Yeah that is pretty crazy that google would pull that kinda stuff. I mean, if my search comes up with 4 million pages, i might want to see what the last one is. My trust in google is forever broken 
....not really. woot i didnt no google lies wow how can they lie anyway they are a search engine helpin ppl oh well nva mind l00l
Google is a very famous and popular search engine...
Thats not good for their reputation...
i think it's pretty stuiped to say they have so many results, because actualy no one needs so many!and "lieing" about it?!that's totally lame 
hey... if you had gone to the last page you would have seen this
| Quote: |
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 953 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. |
thus they dont lie. They just dont want to use server cpu for all those pages unless you want to really look at them. Even if you search with omitted results, they arent there. I also said at the end of my first post thats its not much of a lie. Its more of an interesting fact.
Thats not good for their reputation
| Quote: |
| ven if you search with omitted results, they arent there. I also said at the end of my first post thats its not much of a lie. Its more of an interesting fact. |
Sorry, I really should have tested before I posted that. Yet another stupid thing that I have done added to my very long list.Sh1t on u google xD 
This is a bad thing? Chances are, if it's not in the first 100 pages, it's of no use to you. It's not like Alta Vista or Lycos will give you the three million pages either.
Haha, someone must have been bored? Still, nice find. I wonder why Google would partake in such a lie? Hmm... 
Owell, Adsense is all I care about in terms of Google, so I'll let it be... 
Google isn't lying people. No where does it say it will serve you ALL of the results. Second, if you read the results page it says: "Results 1 - 10 of about XXXX for [search criteria]"
It's that 'about'; they aren't being specific. Nor are they required to.
A lot of them are just lists of loads of hits for one site, so it tends to condense them into the one result for each site.
could also simply be a "glitch" in there server possibly?
right?
what part of "its not much of a lie" didnt anyone read?
Have you tried searching for just 1000 results. 
Maybe they lied about that too. | Jayfarer wrote: |
| Chances are, if it's not in the first 100 pages, it's of no use to you. |
True. I'm not exactly certain how google runs, but I believe as you go through each page, the search responses get less and less relevant (or maybe it's less popular?). Unless you're really hardcore on finding something, not many people will go through all those pages.
Al google says is that it's spiders found "n" amount results for "x", they never said they were going to show them all - although, one would think its implied.Just like Gmail. I appreciate the service, it is the second best product of 2005 according to pcworld magazine, 
But look at this, gmail was the first to release a good gigamail.... then yahoo and others quickly released their GB mails. Actually, none can support millions of users using more than 1GB each, so these email capacities are only a label, as only a few users really fill the space. If everyone used it all, the systems would collapse!
Same thinking for the 3098902843028748320 results found by google. Actually, not 1/1000 of that number were found, but the good of google is the relevancy of the first 2 pages results returned. Personally, Who Cares if you cant see Result 82451 out of 3 million? there is no real reason that you should be looking at page 82451 because it probably has absolutely anything to do with the topic. Personally, if you cant find out what you looking for within the first 5 pages, then you should try using new keywords and such.
its just not feasible for anyone to store your 3million search pages,in a temp cache/database, while you look through them one by one. also its not as if you are paying to use the search engine to complain about this so much :p
if you are paying for the service, then you expect more.
but this is from a society that pays abt 300$ for a MS-OS, and accepts BSOD's and crashes as part of the "service"
now why dont you complain about that??? Guess what I tried?
http://www.google.com/search?q=dog&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=1000&sa=N
Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. (You asked for results starting from 1000.)
lmao.
Okay this is even better.
http://www.google.com/search?q=dog&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=999&sa=N
Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. (You asked for results starting from 999.) Huh? OK, now google is even 'lying" in it's own error notices? Haha, that's really interesting.
Google is slacking!
Again,
FACTA NON VERBA
Yes, that's just terrible! Perhaps you can't cheat on URLS like that and you are automatically sent to an error-type page. I can't believe Google would do such a horrible thing, oh the terror...
Sorry, but I fail to see how this is worthy of it's own thread, no matter how interesting the results may be.
Aw, c'mon Soul, its a forum...damn near everything is worthy of its own thread. After all...its called General Chat...if its something you can chat about...and it's general...so...there we go. It is very weird of Google to do that...but after all, it does save computer resources...someone needs to make a search engine that doesn't skim the rest of the results. Not really that anyone would need it...just make make some popularity...like they could say it's better than Google...I'll shut up now, I think I'm ranting.
As Camibar already said: Who needs that many results?
I already get tired like after the 5th page. And from then on it mostly is
getting worse and worse.
And if you search for dog... Well. what do you expect?
Google is no mind reader *g*..
But if you imagine that there are so many pages on the internet..
Almost impossible to find the very right one with google..
I just think it's hilarious the way some people are taking this oh so deeply to heart...
Keep going guys, I'm laughin at... I mean with you!
| David_Pardy wrote: |
| I just think it's hilarious the way some people are taking this oh so deeply to heart... |
I thought I could trust google... 
this entire thread has gone way beyond what i expected. It was a weird fact i found out just by playing with urls. I never said "you need these results." I never said "google should burn." Of course they arent going to show all your pages/all results. Thats retarded and a waste of time. If u need to go past page, ill say 10 to be generous, then you need to get off a computer becuase u dont know how to search. It was a weird fact. Nothing more, nothing less.
| Srs2388 wrote: |
could also simply be a "glitch" in there server possibly?
right? |
Unlikely. Google doesn't make "glitches". If something goes wrong, Google intended it to happen that way.i nvr need to go down coz google gives me the relevant results in the first 3 pages 
anywayz thzn for the info Interesting find....
thats about all it is. Pretty cool.. tested with and without omitted results and sure enough the same thing happens.
I agree with the above mentioned 'if you happened to need more than 10 results then get off the computer' (paraphrased of course )
Google does a good job of providing what you need usually within the first page. The rest of the results are just a result of what the algorithm returns. Its a good use of space and time to limit how much results are returned. The relevency of the search parameter starts to fade after a while anyways. i say to type french military victorys then hit im fealing lucky . no, but i love google and im going to send them an email or somthing like that about that. now if they cant show the web page... lawsuit time. I never tried to view more than 200 results because i find what i need until than. If google returned 2.000.000 results imagine how slow will be. Many results are ignored (as a part of the same web page or other reason). I like google because it is very very fast, not like yahoo (the results are displayed instantly and the page is loading very very fast). If someone finds something interesting at result 1000 
notice me . How long it would take to do a manual search of Google's 3 billion Web pages, at one minute a page?
5,707 years
How long it usually takes Google to search its database?
0.5 seconds
Market capitalization of publicly held search companies Overture, LookSmart, InfoSpace, FindWhat and Ask Jeeves.
$1,948,000,000
Market cap of Google, if it traded at 3 times estimated 2003 revenues (Google is a privately held company and aren't traded on the stock market, that is why this was just estimated)
$2,100,000,000
Number of languages in which you can have the Google home page set up, including Urdu, Latin and Klingon.
88
Google's share of global English-language searches.
33%
heres a little something to try you've got to find a one word search with only one result pretty hard.. i got about 10 when i tryed gets anoyin when you cant get any for awhile.. post the ones or how many you get could be interesting.. something to do when you bored as well .. lol
TRY IT The nuber of hits indicated is true, however as it is so large, it would not be feasible for Google to store the results for every user for an extremely large number as this would take up a great amount of memory. Knowing how many people use Google at any given moment, you can imagine the problems that would be created if this would be done.
It's nothing personal.
Google is an algorithm based search engine, using a predetermined set of logical commands like all programs. The algorithm calculates the total number of results, sorts them by a relevance factor. There is also probably a maximum threshold/capacity the search can take up, so no matter the number of search results, only a certain amount sorted by relevance factor are shown.
First, the message is shown
| Quote: |
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 953 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. |
That is the first rule is that you can open up the search-tree to show all results.
A second independant rule is the maximum capacity, which shows the 1000 limit message.
These rules are independant, and the algorithm is not modified to correlate the two rules together. This is probably not economical because the majority of results are found in the first 5 pages and it would be rare for someone to meet both rules simulataneously. If the algorithm was modified, igor123d would be right, the memory would be overloaded and bandwidth would have to be increased.
Google and G-mail are great, I use both, and I know people with G-mail 50% full.
