Basis of Inquiry
Set 1: Results 598 for bethany "top echelon"
Set 2: Results 826 for bethany "top echelon network"

Hypothesis
According to the immutable laws of mathematics established by Archimedes
(circa. 250 B.C.), Set 2 is a SUBSET of Set 1, and therefore, the number
of members of Set 2 must be less than or equal to the number of members
of Set 1.

Conclusion
Google is illogical!

Can someone explain how Google works?

Thanks!

Steve

Steve Forrestor wrote:
> Basis of Inquiry
> Set 1: Results 598 for bethany "top echelon"
> Set 2: Results 826 for bethany "top echelon network"
>
> Hypothesis
> According to the immutable laws of mathematics established by Archimedes
> (circa. 250 B.C.), Set 2 is a SUBSET of Set 1, and therefore, the number
> of members of Set 2 must be less than or equal to the number of members
> of Set 1.
>
> Conclusion
> Google is illogical!
>
> Can someone explain how Google works?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve


Hi think, that you wanted to prove this..

set A: top and echelon (4,600,000)
set B: top and echelon and network (1,910,000)

if you use "", you look for teh exact word...maybe that explains
tehresults....

regards

Alberto

"Steve Forrestor" <abuse@verizon.net> wrote:

> Basis of Inquiry
> Set 1: Results 598 for bethany "top echelon"
> Set 2: Results 826 for bethany "top echelon network"
>
> Hypothesis
> According to the immutable laws of mathematics established by Archimedes
> (circa. 250 B.C.), Set 2 is a SUBSET of Set 1, and therefore, the number
> of members of Set 2 must be less than or equal to the number of members
> of Set 1.
>
> Conclusion
> Google is illogical!
>
> Can someone explain how Google works?

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,360 for bethany "top echelon".
Results 1 - 10 of about 781 for bethany "top echelon network".

I guess you have hit google during an update, or switches datacenters
without knowing.


--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

http://johnbokma.com/perl/perl-quick...ence-card.html (draft)

"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9823A381E5431castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> "Steve Forrestor" <abuse@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Basis of Inquiry
>> Set 1: Results 598 for bethany "top echelon"
>> Set 2: Results 826 for bethany "top echelon network"
>>
>> Hypothesis
>> According to the immutable laws of mathematics established by Archimedes
>> (circa. 250 B.C.), Set 2 is a SUBSET of Set 1, and therefore, the number
>> of members of Set 2 must be less than or equal to the number of members
>> of Set 1.
>>
>> Conclusion
>> Google is illogical!
>>
>> Can someone explain how Google works?
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 1,360 for bethany "top echelon".
> Results 1 - 10 of about 781 for bethany "top echelon network".
>
> I guess you have hit google during an update, or switches datacenters
> without knowing.
>
>
> --
> John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
>
> http://johnbokma.com/perl/perl-quick...ence-card.html (draft)

I just did it again...

Results 1 - 37 of about 804 for bethany "top echelon network". (0.74
seconds)
Results 1 - 100 of about 536 for bethany "top echelon". (0.45 seconds)

Could you possibly be filtering the results with a parental type filter
and it is censoring a greater % of the results from the more general
search?

I get 1330 & 750 (more general search getting more results)

On 19 Aug 2006 01:09:02 -0700, "SEOwebMarket.com"
<webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote:

>Could you possibly be filtering the results with a parental type filter
>and it is censoring a greater % of the results from the more general
>search?
>
>I get 1330 & 750 (more general search getting more results)

How are we supposed to know what you're replying to? You need to leave
some content in so people can follow the thread.

You need to go back to the beginning and start again. Preferably
somewhere that isn't here.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/affordable-we...n-services.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-home-page.htm

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:16:59 GMT, Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 19 Aug 2006 01:09:02 -0700, "SEOwebMarket.com"
><webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>>Could you possibly be filtering the results with a parental type filter
>>and it is censoring a greater % of the results from the more general
>>search?
>>
>>I get 1330 & 750 (more general search getting more results)
>
>How are we supposed to know what you're replying to? You need to leave
>some content in so people can follow the thread.
>
>You need to go back to the beginning and start again. Preferably
>somewhere that isn't here.

He knows as much about posting to usenet than he does SEO.
I guess mommy didn't buy him his happy meal the other day. He is still
in a strop.

Someone give him a dummy [pacifier] to suck on.
plh
Paul


>BB

--
Handmade Jewelry http://www.houstoncrafts.com/ Beaded with loving care.
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/houston...elry-june.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Big Bill wrote:
> How are we supposed to know what you're replying to?

If you had half a brain, little willie, you'd be able to deduce that I
am posting to what was has been written in this thread.

> You need to leave
> some content in so people can follow the thread.

You mean for idiots like yourself, little willie, that aren't attentive
enough to either know what has been said or to be resourceful and
competant enough to look. So when you refer to "people" (above), you
mean yourself that is incapable of following along? I'll bet you are
clever enough to know where to look to figure out what is going on. Go
ahead - answer your own stupid question about how you could possibly
understand what has been said:

> You need to go back to the beginning and start again.

And where, little wille, should trolls hang out if they don't have
anything of value to say?

> Preferably
> somewhere that isn't here.

Now that you've caught on, let's review (for the trolls):

1. Steve asked an interesting question about how a query can have less
results than a subset of that query (when naturally a subset, by
definition, "should" have less results).

2. Gordy was nice enough to try to although he didn't understand
the question.

3. John Bokma states the results that he found from teh two queries to
be different #s from Steve's #s, but clearly states: "I guess you have
hit google during an update, or switches datacenters without knowing."

"I guess" - in other words he has no idea what he is talking about, and
is trying to patch the problem with a BS CATCH-ALL EXCUSE because he
does not know how to solve this problem. A BS CATCH-ALL EXCUSE may
look intelligent to some people, but it is actually more along the
lines of deceptive and ignorant.

4. Steve states again that he got (nearly) the same results as before,
on a second search. Problem still exists. BS CATCH-ALL EXCUSE didn't
work.

5. I stated that I got close to the same results as little willy did.
I asked STEVE (the guy asking the question - not the trolls) if it
could be possible that the results are actually less for the subset,
but his computer could be filtering more results from the larger set.

Steve obviously understands my response because he named the
mathematician that developed that form of thinking. Steve can also
easily check if his results are filtered (which is very likely since he
had less results than two other people doing the search.

I respectably offered to someone asking for . I gave a
creative and plausible solution that can easily be verified. I offered
data to support my theory.

6. little willie the troll interjects what is intended to be cruel and
hurtful insults after explaining again that he has no idea what is
going on.

7. little willie's troll friend comes in to add more childish insults
with a joke from 1980 about "your momma" because that is the extent of
his intelligence.

8. I'm not used to being so specific, but then again, I didn't have to
for Steve because he is smart enough to figure it out. You two
pathetic trolls should stop sending pointless spam - some of us get
sick of gettin emails everyday about your worthless comments. If you
don't have anything of value to say, STFU trolls. Last time I spell
this out for you two jackasses (Big "little willy" Bill & Paul), no one
likes trolls.

9. By definition the trolls will retaliate with the most hurtful things
that they can come up with (hurtful only to themselves), and I will
ignore because you're not supposed to feed the trolls.