Very confusing SERP stats

[deepsand]

I can think of several reasons why one might care about both particulars; but, I'll hold silent on that pending Don's response.

[LD]

I can think of several reasons why one might care about both particulars; but, I'll hold silent on that pending Don's response.

So you are saying there is reason to care.

[Clint1]

Actually, I do. Which is why I posed the question. If we stop asking "why", then we'll never know, even if the answer is "we'll never know", which of itself, is at least an attempt at an answer. That, and an associate/client asked about this a little while back.

This has been going on for many years regardless of the search, and I too have always wondered why. If they claim a search has X results, then why not show them all instead of showing X - n where 'n' is a huge number? Apparently they deem the 'sequestered penalized' results as 'unworthy' and not worth anyone wanting to see them. Another way they censor results (but in all fairness to them, the other SE's may do the same thing....which still does not make it right).

[SteveB]

This has been going on for many years regardless of the search, and I too have always wondered why. If they claim a search has X results, then why not show them all instead of showing X - n where 'n' is a huge number? Apparently they deem the 'sequestered penalized' results as 'unworthy' and not worth anyone wanting to see them. Another way they censor results (but in all fairness to them, the other SE's may do the same thing....which still does not make it right).

I never noticed that, so I took some time this morning to test SERPS on multiple queries, from rack space to cookware. I'm not seeing what you describe. In fact, every single search query returned the same number of results regardless of which page I clicked through to.

[Clint1]

I never noticed that, so I took some time this morning to test SERPS on multiple queries, from rack space to cookware. I'm not seeing what you describe. In fact, every single search query returned the same number of results regardless of which page I clicked through to.

Got me. I just now did a search and all I saw at the top was: "About 4,630,000 results", that's it. I clicked through the end of every single page navigation at the bottom in order to get to the end which was only 71 pages, and then I saw the typical: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 707 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." So I had to do the frickin' search all over again (as usual), clicked through all the pages again, and was stopped at only 100 pages, and at the top it says: "Page 100 of about 4,620,000 results", which is only 1000 results, about 4,619,000 omitted. Which as I said is typical for many years. So I don't understand what you're seeing.

[SteveB]

Got me. I just now did a search and all I saw at the top was: "About 4,630,000 results", that's it. I clicked through the end of every single page navigation at the bottom in order to get to the end which was only 71 pages, and then I saw the typical: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 707 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." So I had to do the frickin' search all over again (as usual), clicked through all the pages again, and was stopped at only 100 pages, and at the top it says: "Page 100 of about 4,620,000 results", which is only 1000 results, about 4,619,000 omitted. Which as I said is typical for many years. So I don't understand what you're seeing.

Just did this again with a query of rack space. I got - About 7,990,000 results (0.10 seconds), then clicked on page 10 and got - Page 10 of about 25,400,000 results (0.11 seconds) - Go figure

[deepsand]

And more to the point ... who cares?

Please explain.

Who cares that they're so badly off?

Who cares why that's the case?

Both?

[tap ... tap ... tap ...]

Don, is this thing on?

[SinghVineet]

This has been going on Google for a long time.
This is what they explain the reason for this type of search result:

In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the X already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

Do a search and you will find it dated back to 2 Apr 2003 as discussed on webmasterworld.com/
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the"

If that would have been a error Google must have corrected it.

[Clint1]

This has been going on Google for a long time.
This is what they explain the reason for this type of search result:


Do a search and you will find it dated back to 2 Apr 2003 as discussed on webmasterworld.com/
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the"

But that (and what you quoted) is not what we're talking about here. Read again.

If that would have been a error Google must have corrected it.

(G rarely corrects errors anyway). But that's not what we're saying anyway. It's an omission. "If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included", but when you do that they do not give you results with all of "the omitted results included".

I think I now remember hearing a long time ago that G limits results to only 100 pages.