

600613 - krg
http://bit-player.org/2014/600613

======
IvyMike
> Most numbers of this magnitude garner a few thousand hits on Google, but
> 25898913 gets 29,500,000.

If you actually click through the results, on pages 1-34 you get "Page 34 of
about 24,900,000 results (0.34 seconds) ", but on page 35 you discover that
there are only actually 341 results.

~~~
ajani
I've found this to be consistent behaviour with Google. The number of search
results tend to be totally unreliable. I don't know if they use the same
search algorithm for gmail, but the same problem occurs there as well.
Initially it might say 1-50 of 100 results, go to the second page and suddenly
it's 50-100 of 2000. And on the next page 100-150 of "many".

Google search-hit count has never been fully accurate - I say this empirically
from use over the years, and having tried to use the number of hits in some
random experiment I can no longer remember.

~~~
vtlynch
Google acknowledges this:
[https://support.google.com/gsa/answer/2672285?hl=en](https://support.google.com/gsa/answer/2672285?hl=en)

I remember seeing a more in depth article about this but cant find it at the
moment.

~~~
Chinjut
So apparently it is possible to get an accurate result count (for up to 1
million results) using "rc = 1"? Does anyone have an examples illustrating
this behavior (I can't seem to contrive one where it makes a difference)?

~~~
ajani
I suspect rc=1 applies to enterprise search.

~~~
Chinjut
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!

------
vitd
It would be nice to change the title to something coherent and useful, like,
"Search queries containing only numbers," or something of that sort. As such,
there's not a lot of incentive to click on "600613". (Yeah, I did it, mostly
just to make this post coherent.)

~~~
vog
Well, I was expecting something about the "Google projection" for maps,
unofficially noted as the slightly different EPSG:900913 [1] until finally
standardized as EPSG:3857 [2].

[1] [http://crschmidt.net/blog/archives/243/google-
projection-900...](http://crschmidt.net/blog/archives/243/google-
projection-900913/)

[2] [http://www.epsg-
registry.org/report.htm?type=selection&entit...](http://www.epsg-
registry.org/report.htm?type=selection&entity=urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::3857&reportDetail=short&style=urn:uuid:report-
style:default-with-
code&style_name=OGP%20Default%20With%20Code&title=EPSG:3857)

------
bowmessage
In response to the trivia question: I'm assuming that it's impossible to find
some N wit fewer than 10 digits. In all of my attempts I've received results
relating to phone number reverse-lookup sites.

There also seems to be this website which exists just to generate a page full
of numbers with any given prefix (defined in the URL):

[http://www.qzonecom.com/mobile/maanshan_511556.html](http://www.qzonecom.com/mobile/maanshan_511556.html)

Why?!

~~~
sssss3333
That's my favorite thing about the internet:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cghg-
QyTP_M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cghg-QyTP_M) No reason

------
malkia
A new type of business: find a number that's not yet in google/bing/etc. -
embded it in your text, and then track who's copied you verbatim - some kind
of tracking I guess..

------
pavel_lishin
10,041,295,923 now returns exactly one result - the author's page, just as he
theorized.

I wonder if it'll return two results soon.

~~~
ikeboy
[https://archive.today/j8KXp](https://archive.today/j8KXp) Now it does!

------
guidopallemans
website is under a heavy load, here is the cached version:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MvuGGDF...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MvuGGDFhj4MJ:bit-
player.org/2014/600613+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=be)

------
moonfern
The about "number" results should give an idea but it might not be accurate,
tells google.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ix3mHeL7hg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ix3mHeL7hg)

Anyway you only get the first 1000 results of your googling.

------
alex_duf
I think it's a matter of scale. The scale of the human race gives us a range
of number that are humanly comprehensible. Their distribution diminishes as
they make less and less sense to our scale.

------
ozh
That is pretty much the kind of posts I come to HN for. Thanks for the read :)

