?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Abi

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
08:14 pm: 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?

Current Music: roots manuva - collosal insight
Tags:

Comments

[User Picture]
From:lithiana
Date:February 7th, 2005 07:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:abigailb
Date:February 7th, 2005 07:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ok, so it seems someone is more bored than even I was. Go extend it to 50. :)
[User Picture]
From:lithiana
Date:February 7th, 2005 11:02 am (UTC)
(Link)


:-)

and here's "he":



i wonder where the peaks around 50 come from.
[User Picture]
From:abigailb
Date:February 7th, 2005 11:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
Could google be lying? Very odd.
[User Picture]
From:hythloday
Date:February 7th, 2005 11:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
Google is lying - look at the first result for hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (22). It's a link to a page with 45 characters of 'ha'.
[User Picture]
From:lithiana
Date:February 7th, 2005 11:25 am (UTC)
(Link)
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.
From:evan
Date:March 20th, 2005 04:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
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
Powered by LiveJournal.com