

First number not in Google? (2008) - nikolaypavlov
http://godplaysdice.blogspot.com/2008/09/first-number-not-in-google.html

======
patmcguire
I remember having what I thought was a brilliant idea of the time of squatting
iPhone domains a decade in advance - clearly there was no way I was getting in
on the next, but maybe iphone6 wasn't taken... (this was when the current was
four).

Anyway, at the time the lowest one available was iphone36.com. I didn't
register it. It's taken now, no idea how high you'd have to go now.

~~~
nostromo
It's harder if you count like Microsoft:

1, 360, 1

~~~
r00fus
I thought the canonical Microsoft list was Windows:

1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.1.1(for workgroups), 95, 98, 98SE, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1,
10

~~~
jzwinck
Most people using NT knew it as version 4. Some folks knew that Windows 2000
was version 5. After that, things got weird: Vista is 6 but Windows 7 is 6.1
and Windows 8 is 6.2: [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/desktop/ms72...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/desktop/ms724832%28v=vs.85%29.aspx)

Windows 10 will finally (but perhaps temporarily) undo this weirdness, and
report itself as version 10, but only to some applications!
[http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/11/why-
wi...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/11/why-
windows-10-isnt-version-6-any-more-and-why-it-will-probably-work/)

------
sharkweek
I dink around in SEO a lot because I find it fascinating, fun and occasionally
profitable. As a fun anecdote, at one point I wrote a ridiculously sarcastic
post about "how to rank #1 on Google" and held the number one position for
that query for at least a year. [1]

A long time ago, one of my friends came to me saying "When I googled for a
picture of a bird wearing a tucked in shirt, I couldn't find anything!"

Clearly this tragedy needed a remedy, so I MSPainted a shirt onto a bird,
tucked neatly into its little belly and plopped it onto my blog [2] with most
of the SEO best practices check boxes filled in. Since it was of so little
value and competition it took about three days for it to rank number one for
"bird wearing a tucked in shirt" \- My friend thought I was a wizard, telling
her coworkers of my mystical powers and ability to manipulate the internet.
"You have very powerful friends" her boss would proclaim.

Point of this story? Well, there isn't really one.

Unfortunately, I broke my blog a few months ago in a host migration resulting
in a crash for all my useless rankings. The image was lost in that migration
as well... Perhaps someone else can provide the world with an image of a bird
wearing a tucked in shirt it so desperately needs.

[1] Here's the now broken post for anyone curious -
[http://stentontoledo.com/blog/how-to-rank-1-on-google-
guaran...](http://stentontoledo.com/blog/how-to-rank-1-on-google-guaranteed/)

[2] [http://stentontoledo.com/blog/a-bird-wearing-a-tucked-in-
shi...](http://stentontoledo.com/blog/a-bird-wearing-a-tucked-in-shirt/)

~~~
JacobAldridge
I was once tasked with reviewing our company website,and my first
recommendation was adding a list of happy clients (with links to their sites),
for a variety of reasons.

The next week I was able to announce to the team that we now ranked #1 on
Google (cue applause) ... for some random phrase I compiled by using words in
client names. I figured it was a good lesson for them that "#1 on Google" is
not a goal in and of itself; you need to rank for something that matters.

Your bird with a tucked in shirt is a brilliant example, so thanks.

------
kcimc
In the artwork "The Secret Lives of Numbers"[1] by Golan Levin, et al. from
2002, scraping AltaVista with Perl for the numbers 0 to 1,000,000 returned
results for every number (otherwise I'm sure this would be mentioned in the
report[2]). So at least 7 figures have been omnipresent on the web for the
last 12+ years.

[1] [http://flong.com/projects/slon/](http://flong.com/projects/slon/) [2]
[http://flong.com/storage/pdf/reports/webnums_report.pdf](http://flong.com/storage/pdf/reports/webnums_report.pdf)

------
domdip
There's a similar game in which you ask "what is the smallest positive integer
that doesn't have a dedicated Wikipedia page?"

And then you can ask what happens when _that_ number gets its own Wikipedia
page...

~~~
ketralnis
N is the smallest number without a wikipedia page. A page is created to
document this fact. N+1 is now the smallest number without a wikipedia page.

But if you created the page for N, that was its only feature of notability. If
you create a page for N+1, N is now no longer notable. But that means also
means that N+1's page is both inaccurate and not notable, and so it must be
deleted. N is now once again the smallest number without a wikipedia page.

So rather than creating an infinitely increasing set of pages, I think you end
up toggling forever between N and N+1

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
This is how you lose editing privileges.

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
(...either 2551 or 7563, depending on if you allow things like "7562
Kagiroino-Oka")

------
yc210000041821
While there is no proof that this is the smallest number, you can find an
rough upper bound by shedding digits

After a couple minutes of playing I worked it down to 210000041821 before
getting bored.

A tenth of this and you are in telephone number space. Numbers a bit smaller
than this and you are in valid parcel tracking numbers. Either Google indexing
this page or more packages being sent will eventually invalidate this post.

------
Finbarr
This makes me wonder if finding short strings with no/few search results and
getting ranked for them all could lead to some free traffic from Google.
Shotgun SEO?

------
rco8786
This site doesn't help:
[http://www.integernumber.com/](http://www.integernumber.com/)

------
Tepix
Well, let's find out. I came up with 35949340184

