<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>louisgray.com - Latest Comments in louisgray.com: Millions and Millions of Search Results... Ignored</title><link>http://louisgray.disqus.com/</link><description>A Silicon Valley Blog for Early Adopters and Tech Geeks</description><atom:link href="https://louisgray.disqus.com/louisgraycom_millions_and_millions_of_search_results_ignored/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:13:00 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: louisgray.com: Millions and Millions of Search Results... Ignored</title><link>http://blog.louisgray.com/2007/12/millions-and-millions-of-search-results.html#comment-429217296</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Louis does that mean that google is like a human brain is bound by the processing power? That is, some researchers cite that the human brain recieves millions of bits (these may not be bits as computer bit heads think in terms of), that is pieces of information, senses and so forth, yet is only able to respond or address a much smaller number at any one point in time.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So that corelates to the performance aspect of the brain, then there is the retention side and brain food for thought, here's a couple of reads, take them for what they are:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.kundalini-tantra.com/brtol3.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.kundalini-tantra.com/brtol3.html"&gt;http://www.kundalini-tantra...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And a mention of a report I saw on CNN (FWIW) the other day about measuring brain waves to read voters minds, maybe a new google applicaiton potential...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/04/reading-voters-minds/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/04/reading-voters-minds/"&gt;http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Cheers&lt;br&gt;GS&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">gregschulz</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:13:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: louisgray.com: Millions and Millions of Search Results... Ignored</title><link>http://blog.louisgray.com/2007/12/millions-and-millions-of-search-results.html#comment-429217298</link><description>&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few tricks to get more than 1,000 results. Not in a single search though...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;1. You can use multiple search engines. Surprisingly, for most queries the overlap is less than 25%. You can check our test-drive of the major four search engines (Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask) &lt;a href="http://fswsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/seomoz-long-list-of-link-searches.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://fswsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/seomoz-long-list-of-link-searches.html"&gt;http://fswsblog.blogspot.co...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;2. If you slightly modify your query, the search results will also be slightly different:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;  Use synonyms. Then remove duplicates and you'll get more than 1,000 results;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;  Compose more specific queries. You'll get the same 1,000 results, but those will be more relevant 1,000 results. I.e. add more relevant words, or exclude some irrelevant words with "-". Then merge search results and remove duplicates.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This trick with multiple derived queries with different excluded words will produce the most relevant list of more than 1,000 merged search results for you original query.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Of course, you should consider some sort of automation when you merge long lists of search results and remove duplicates.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Be creative&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">FirstStop</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:34:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: louisgray.com: Millions and Millions of Search Results... Ignored</title><link>http://blog.louisgray.com/2007/12/millions-and-millions-of-search-results.html#comment-429217301</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It might benefit *you* to see the rest of the data, but what benefit is there to Google? &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you haven't clicked on an ad, looking at the first 100 results, you're not going to click on an ad. I suspect the only reason for letting you have 1,000 results is to keep you a loyal Googler. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you need extra access to data, I'm sure Google will sell it to you. Just as they will sell you your own Google appliance. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you've got a good enough story, Google might even *give* it to you; they seem to be charitable folk. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But I can't see any reason for Google to *give* you 2,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 results.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paul Ding</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:17:00 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>