Google result Limits

March 24, 2006 8:13 AM

Google must know exactly what you're you're looking for, right? Unfortunately, they limit the results of your query to 1000. If you're doing research on crack whores, you'll get 2,800,000 results. If the page you want is at 14,673, you're out of luck. But there's still hope for finding what you need in this vast, uncharted web.
posted by sluglicker (20 comments total)

Actually dios, none of them. This was an honest post that I thought held links to interesting and valuable information. I did a search here and found no previous posts regarding the topic covered and, since I thought it noteworthy, posted it. Perhaps the way I wrote the FPP is the problem. If so, please enlighten me as to the correct way to do it. If the content is the problem, do the same.

After a month or so here, I get the impression that a large portion of you people like to pull out their dicks and see who's biggest. That's not why I'm here. I just like information. I'm sharing what I find interesting.
posted by sluglicker at 8:50 AM on March 24, 2006

Presumably a real researcher would search for the phrase "crack whores" to avoid articles about, ummmm, whores' cracks, but 200,000 results is still a lot of porn to wade through.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:01 AM on March 24, 2006

I would imagine that it would be quicker to limit your search results by adding more query terms, rather than read through more than 1000 search results.
posted by fvox13 at 9:13 AM on March 24, 2006

ummm, what happened to dios's comment and the other one? Kind of makes mine irrelevant, doesn't it?

@fvox13
You're probably right. We're no longer limited to the 10 word query. It's comforting to know that Google can direct me to the appropriate information when I need it.
posted by sluglicker at 9:59 AM on March 24, 2006

(Post deletion sure does lead to some surreal moments.)
posted by lodurr at 10:02 AM on March 24, 2006

I would imagine that it would be quicker to limit your search results by adding more query terms, rather than read through more than 1000 search results.

That seems to be the general assumption that people make. It assumes, of course, that adding more query terms is a useful way to get the page you want. Sometimes it's not.
posted by lodurr at 10:06 AM on March 24, 2006

Hasn't anybody heard of "Search within results?" If your first query returns more than 1000 results, a Search Within Results WILL search all results. Same thing as adding AND between keywords.
posted by beagle at 10:12 AM on March 24, 2006

Mod note: removed a few comments that were flagged for removal by the original poster alleging that this was a self-link, sorry for the cognitive dissonanace
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:33 AM on March 24, 2006

Good online search skills are extremely valuable. So a good topic for a mefi post.
And the last link is amazing: somebody who devotes so much time and attention at the subject. Sadly his site is almost unreadable: 2 'enter' pages, typography that conveys no clues about meaning, words that are links but provide no clue as to what they are linking to, ...
As to content of the last link: I did find his advice on translating a question ("why is the sun yellow") into a query for instance disappointing. It supposes too much advance real-world knowledge; it's not the hard query cases where you already know that much about the subject, it's the subjects that you know little about where the google fu becomes a career factor. (In my line of work at least).
Maybe I should get the book Google Hacks.
Any other sources?
posted by jouke at 10:37 AM on March 24, 2006

Ceci n'est pa un post !
posted by elpapacito at 10:37 AM on March 24, 2006

If you are looking for something popular, it is more reasonable to search on del.icio.us/tag/keyword. You'll get popular and useful results. Sometimes I really think that social bookmarks managers are more efficient than general search engines like Google.
posted by volandmast at 10:55 AM on March 24, 2006

Useful but NSFW
posted by SuperNova at 11:20 AM on March 24, 2006

I think that last link, the "searchlores" page, is cool for a world wide web and websearching in terms that seem almost, if not fully, mystical. Thanks for sharing this.
posted by jayder at 11:52 AM on March 24, 2006

That last post got garbled somehow. I meant to say,

I think that last link, the "searchlores" page, is cool. The author treats the world wide web and websearching in terms that seem almost, if not fully, mystical. Thanks for sharing this.
posted by jayder at 11:53 AM on March 24, 2006

When I research crack whores, I don't use Google, I just go to Frogtown.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:21 PM on March 24, 2006

God as my witness, I had never noticed Google's "Search within results" link before. <Smacks forehead! />
posted by steef at 12:57 PM on March 24, 2006

" using ad hoc searching techniques. "

Speaking of typography and crack whores, the font made this look like:

" using ad hoe searching techniques."
posted by IronLizard at 1:16 PM on March 25, 2006

jouke: Maybe I should get the book Google Hacks. Any other sources?

Web Search Garage (also by Calishain)

Deep Web Research Research 2006

Tool Kit for the Expert Web Searcher
posted by mlis at 8:55 AM on March 26, 2006

@MLIS:
Really great links. Thank you.
posted by sluglicker at 6:56 PM on March 26, 2006

I would like to know how to "turn off" some of the defaults Google uses... For instance, say I want to look for a company called Multimodal Technologies.. its official name is also M*Modal.. and a search for "M*Modal" returns a bunch of irrelevant results that interpret "m*modal" as M-(separated by wildcards)-Modal....
posted by mhh5 at 10:31 PM on March 27, 2006