4 ms·

No, problems like returning meaningful results for "torsoraphy". See the first example that is provided in Danny Sullivan's post.

• brudgers 16y ago
  Not to rationalize away the similarity between nonsense words and search results, but there are legitimate reasons why gross misspellings might yield similar results. Among them are that similar algorithms may have been derived from similar libraries and academic literature. With 25+ years in the word processor business Microsoft certainly has significant experience with spell check and algorithmically deciphering bungled words - The claim that Google has better code for deciphering jumbled spelling is not self-evident.
  • contextfree 16y ago
    The suspicious part is that the "corrected" version only appeared in one link, the first. So it doesn't seem to have actually recognized the misspelling as such, but associated it with the Wikipedia page through some other mechanism. There's definitely a circumstantial case that it's through the Google clickstream, though I don't think that's the only plausible explanation (especially given that it's a Wikipedia page).
    • brudgers 16y ago
      Right. Typically, Wikipedia would know have a record of the search term being used to reach the page. Of course, it is plausible only if Wikipedia shares that information with others.