« The trojan horse of Getty 'free' images | Main | Google's nutritional quick reference options »

March 21, 2014

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345223b869e201a73d964842970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Inaccurate results from Google; tweeted question:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Walt Crawford

"since Google knows that you're not going to look at thousands of results anyway"

You could reword that: "Since Google ***won't allow you*** to look at more than a thousand results anyway." I assume that large Google result numbers are generated by a random number generator; that's as useful as any other assumption. The numbers aren't verifiable, therefore not meaningful.

Bill Peschel

While I love using Google Books, its ability to find stuff is s***. If you want the volume of a particular magazine, sometimes you'll find it, sometimes not.

Suppose, say, you wanted "Punch vol. 126." Typing "Punch 126" won't find it, even though both are in the headline. Google Books can't find it unless you use the workaround of finding any volume of Punch, clicking on the "More Editions" link, and scrolling down the list until you find the volume.

They're as bad as Amazon, which will give you thousands of items more beyond what you're looking for.

The comments to this entry are closed.

GoogleAdsense

GoogleAdsense

GoogleAdsense

My Photo

Subscribe!

  • Subscribe!
    Add to any service

My Flickr photographs

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Phil Bradley. Make your own badge here.