4 ms·
I see about 2.8 million results from that query, but I'm not surprised the number changes a lot. The result counts are a very rough approximation calculated on
by EricBurnett 15y ago
I see about 2.8 million results from that query, but I'm not surprised the number changes a lot. The result counts are a very rough approximation calculated on the fly, and shouldn't be relied on for more than order-of-magnitude estimates.
The last name method is precise, but of questionable accuracy; the result count is probably more accurate, but very imprecise. Take your pick :).
- Estragon 15y agoThat's interesting; if I anonymize by searching through Google Sharing, I also get 2.8 million results. Searching from my own IP address (though without being logged in) still gives 6.5 million.
- esrauch 15y agoI think that they are reorganizing the results based on if you are signed in with an account that has plus or not. There was someone who posted that their Google+ was "already" in the top 10 results and twitter wasn't even shown, but it was only true if you were logged in. Hopefully they aren't doing something too drastic; there's allegedly already an ongoing antitrust investigation about how google orders its search results.
- Estragon 15y agoMaybe, but it's worth noting that I wasn't signed in, and don't have a G+ account, yet.