In another thread here, there are various statistics being splashed on posts about how many pages contain a given word, for example.
Well, there may be a problem with the figures given by Google as in:
"anticlimatic" ==> 11,600 hits.
"anticlimactic" ==> 94,800 hits.
I too got "Results 1 - 10 of about 11,600 for anticlimatic ". But, there was no 11,600th result! In fact, the last result for that 'word' is result number 821, and 807 for "anticlimactic".
I clicked on 'Next', and got an inspiring URL:
[ignore]
[/ignore]start=10[ignore]&sa=N
[/ignore]
I figured, if I replace that 'start=10' with 'start=11600', I would get to approximately the last page of results, right? Far from it; after a manual binary search, 'start=900' got me to the last page.
This shows me that these 'hits statistics' are misleading at best. In our case (thread1256-955779), our conclusions could use some revising.
Well, there may be a problem with the figures given by Google as in:
"anticlimatic" ==> 11,600 hits.
"anticlimactic" ==> 94,800 hits.
I too got "Results 1 - 10 of about 11,600 for anticlimatic ". But, there was no 11,600th result! In fact, the last result for that 'word' is result number 821, and 807 for "anticlimactic".
I clicked on 'Next', and got an inspiring URL:
[ignore]
[/ignore]start=10[ignore]&sa=N
[/ignore]
I figured, if I replace that 'start=10' with 'start=11600', I would get to approximately the last page of results, right? Far from it; after a manual binary search, 'start=900' got me to the last page.
This shows me that these 'hits statistics' are misleading at best. In our case (thread1256-955779), our conclusions could use some revising.