2 ms·

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 queri

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.