5 ms·

Could the number be valid from indexing standpoint but irrelevant search results are deemed unworthy of display to user? Unworthy + maybe costly on back-end sid

by alas44 4y ago

Could the number be valid from indexing standpoint but irrelevant search results are deemed unworthy of display to user? Unworthy + maybe costly on back-end side e.g. because infrequently accessed data is in cold storage?

kevincox 4y ago
That's exactly what it is. Each page is more expensive to serve than the last (it is basically joining a bunch of indexes for each term and then skipping the first N). At some number of pages they drew a line and decided that the value of these pages isn't worth the cost (and DoS vulnerability) to serve them.
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  Nevertheless, it's a dark pattern. They should make it clear to the user how many results are available to them.
  - kevincox 4y ago
    They are "available". Just the way to get there isn't by going through the result pages but by refining your search.
    - wolpoli 4y ago
      It made sense back then when you could tell Google the exact words that you are looking for. But now that Google drops random words from our query, it's not exactly easy to refine the search query.
- groffee 4y ago
  > At some number of pages they drew a line and decided that the value of these pages isn't worth the cost (and DoS vulnerability) to serve them. They have literally one job.
  - kevincox 4y ago
    To serve you the 5 millionth search result for "funny"? Unless you are going to directly pay for that server cost it just doesn't make sense, and it is such a rare use case that it doesn't even make sense for them to give you that option. They have to cut you off somewhere. When is the last time you legitimately wanted the 401th page of the search results? It will be more efficent for both you and Google if you instead refine your search query than paging through the results forever.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Pro tip. Never reply to someone who uses "literally" incorrectly.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        A definition of literally is literally one that is "not literally true", thus using literally in this case is literally correct https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        > is literally one that Does this literally mean not literally?
        iso1631 4y ago
        It is literally clear as literal mud
colpabar 4y ago
I was thinking this too. Not to claim google is trustworthy, but pagination with large search result sets can be tricky when you go back really far if the queries to fetch them are expensive. The count is probably a different system from the actual results, and the count switching may just be how they handle the 0.000000001% of people who try going to page 400. So the lie may not be how high the number is, but the expectation of being able to see all the results.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  That would mean that the lie is that they show a completely irrelevant number which paints Google as a very extensive and comprehensive search engine while hiding the relevant number which is always radically smaller. > the expectation of being able to see all the results. Which would not exist if Google weren't pushing this massive mystery number that we're currently, in this thread, only speculating about what it could be referring to. This expectation could be easily solved by showing the number of results that Google is planning to return to the user, and tossing out the number that means nothing to anyone.
- kevincox 4y ago
  > So the lie may not be how high the number is, but the expectation of being able to see all the results. The slight twist is that you can see all of the results. Just not by paging. You can refine your query to see them all. I'm sure the number is just an estimation, but it does have some value.

by alas44 4y ago

kevincox 4y ago

That's exactly what it is. Each page is more expensive to serve than the last (it is basically joining a bunch of indexes for each term and then skipping the first N). At some number of pages they drew a line and decided that the value of these pages isn't worth the cost (and DoS vulnerability) to serve them.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago
Nevertheless, it's a dark pattern. They should make it clear to the user how many results are available to them.
- kevincox 4y ago
  They are "available". Just the way to get there isn't by going through the result pages but by refining your search.
  - wolpoli 4y ago
    It made sense back then when you could tell Google the exact words that you are looking for. But now that Google drops random words from our query, it's not exactly easy to refine the search query.
groffee 4y ago
> At some number of pages they drew a line and decided that the value of these pages isn't worth the cost (and DoS vulnerability) to serve them. They have literally one job.
- kevincox 4y ago
  To serve you the 5 millionth search result for "funny"? Unless you are going to directly pay for that server cost it just doesn't make sense, and it is such a rare use case that it doesn't even make sense for them to give you that option. They have to cut you off somewhere. When is the last time you legitimately wanted the 401th page of the search results? It will be more efficent for both you and Google if you instead refine your search query than paging through the results forever.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Pro tip. Never reply to someone who uses "literally" incorrectly.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      A definition of literally is literally one that is "not literally true", thus using literally in this case is literally correct https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > is literally one that Does this literally mean not literally?
        iso1631 4y ago
        It is literally clear as literal mud

colpabar 4y ago

I was thinking this too. Not to claim google is trustworthy, but pagination with large search result sets can be tricky when you go back really far if the queries to fetch them are expensive. The count is probably a different system from the actual results, and the count switching may just be how they handle the 0.000000001% of people who try going to page 400. So the lie may not be how high the number is, but the expectation of being able to see all the results.

pessimizer 4y ago
That would mean that the lie is that they show a completely irrelevant number which paints Google as a very extensive and comprehensive search engine while hiding the relevant number which is always radically smaller. > the expectation of being able to see all the results. Which would not exist if Google weren't pushing this massive mystery number that we're currently, in this thread, only speculating about what it could be referring to. This expectation could be easily solved by showing the number of results that Google is planning to return to the user, and tossing out the number that means nothing to anyone.
kevincox 4y ago
> So the lie may not be how high the number is, but the expectation of being able to see all the results. The slight twist is that you can see all of the results. Just not by paging. You can refine your query to see them all. I'm sure the number is just an estimation, but it does have some value.