abigailbrady: (Default)
[personal profile] abigailbrady
This makes an interesting curve! I wonder why we have the spikes.


1 ha - 172,000,000
2 haha - 6,290,000
3 hahaha - 2,950,000
4 hahahaha - 1,140,000
5 hahahahaha - 523,000
6 hahahahahaha - 262,000
7 hahahahahahaha - 144,000
8 hahahahahahahaha - 86,100
9 hahahahahahahahaha - 50,400
10 hahahahahahahahahaha - 36,500
11 hahahahahahahahahahaha - 22,300
12 hahahahahahahahahahahaha - 15,700
13 hahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 11,800
14 hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 9,350
15 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 9,040
16 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 7,240
17 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 4,510
18 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 3,970
19 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 791
20 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 937
21 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 658
22 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 4,390
22 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 4,080
23 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - 3,640


i am bored. can you tell?

Date: 2005-02-07 07:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] abigailb.livejournal.com
Ok, so it seems someone is more bored than even I was. Go extend it to 50. :)

Date: 2005-02-07 11:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lithiana.livejournal.com


:-)

and here's "he":



i wonder where the peaks around 50 come from.

Date: 2005-02-07 11:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] abigailb.livejournal.com
Could google be lying? Very odd.

Date: 2005-02-07 11:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hythloday.livejournal.com
Google is lying - look at the first result for hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (22). It's a link to a page with 45 characters of 'ha'.

Date: 2005-02-07 11:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lithiana.livejournal.com
oh no! i will never be able to trust google again :-(

i wonder if they'd say why it does that, if we asked... could make an interesting pr story or something.

Date: 2005-03-20 04:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] evan.livejournal.com
The counts are just plain not accurate, and it's that way for very good technical reasons and not simply laziness. Different search engines estimate the total counts in different ways, and while plenty of conspiracy theorists say they lie to make themselves seem more impressive, I don't really believe that. (Well, maybe MSN lies*.)

One way to get a more accurate count, if you have few enough results for a query, is to just go to the last page of results. You'll often get text like "results 10 - 13 of about 5000 results" on the last page.


* kidding

Profile

abigailbrady: (Default)
Abigail Brady

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 4th, 2025 09:55 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios