# A strange Google result



## panjandrum

It's like this.
In a thread I am dedicated to +Ving in EO, roniy said that he found more Googlehits for "dedicated to take care" than "dedicated to taking care."

Being surprised, I did the search myself and got a completely different answer.

roniy and I have exchanged PMs about this.

roniy gets:


> about *913,000* for *"dedicated to take care*
> 
> about *19,100* for *"dedicated to taking care*
> 
> *or another search:*
> about *1,140,000* for *"dedicated to kill*
> about *13,700* for *"dedicated to killing*
> I just noticed that you googled on UK google.
> Can it be AE/ BE usage?


 
I sent the links I had used and the results I got.



> I can't reproduce your results at all.
> 
> HERE is my search screen for:
> about *179* for *"dedicated to take care"*.
> HERE for:
> about *20,600* for *"dedicated to taking care"*.
> There is something strange here.
> Have I typed the words right?
> 
> about *216* for *"dedicated to kill"*.
> about *12,700* for *"dedicated to killing"*.
> 
> I'm using UK Google, but the search is world-wide.
> A restricted UK-only search with the same search string gives:
> about *10* for *"dedicated to take care"*.
> about *79* for *"dedicated to taking care"*.


 
roniy has looked at this and responded:




> Something's weird here ....
> Maybe you pressed on something in "advanced search"
> Because now I've pressed on the first "Here" and it's showed me :
> 
> about *913,000* for *"dedicated to take care"*.
> 
> and this is the link to the page :
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...+care%22&meta=
> 
> about *20,800* for *"dedicated to taking care"*.
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...g+care%22&meta=
> 
> It still shows that "take care" is more common  something is wrong with google


 
I have tried all kinds of variations on the use of "" in and around the phrase, but I can't ever get roniy's 913,000.  He can't get my 179.
Strangely, we are close, but not the same, for "dedicated to taking care".

I have personalised Google on this PC and I wondered if that was the "problem". I tried on another PC that has no personalisation at all and I got the same results as I quoted before.

It would be useful if we could get to the bottom of this.

By the way, roniy and I are earnest seekers after the cause of this Google anomaly. We'll return to discussing the English question back in English Only after we get this GoogleQuirk resolved.

Panj


----------



## lsp

Here's my googlefight result.


----------



## Jana337

Could roniy provide a printscreen of the search result?

Jana


----------



## maxiogee

Curiouser and curiouser…

Google on my Mac - using Safari as browser…
"dedicated to take care" = 180
"dedicated to taking care" = 20,900


----------



## fenixpollo

I get roniy's result exactly, using IE on Windows -- 913,000 for "dedicated to take care". I had no idea that there was a UK Google and a US Google. I went to www.google.co.uk and got 918,000 for "dedicated to take care".

The 5,000-hit disparity is even curioserer....

Isn't there a way to contact Google and bring this to their attention -- and possibly get an answer?


----------



## Kelly B

When I go to google.uk and use the search tool with no filters on, then I get results like roniy's: 913,000 results for "dedicated to take care", 19,800 for "...taking..."

Note that the first page of results for the first sentence includes responses from Mexico, Africa, Poland, and India. Clearly this kind of search will not yield results representative of usage by native speakers.


----------



## Jana337

I switched to IE for the sake of the experiment - no change, my results are exactly whan Panj got.

Jana


----------



## Jana337

Kelly B said:
			
		

> When I go to google.uk and use the search tool with no filters on, then I get results like roniy's: 913,000 results for "dedicated to take care", 19,800 for "...taking..."
> 
> Note that the first page of results for the first sentence includes responses from Mexico, Africa, Poland, and India. Clearly this kind of search will not yield results representative of usage by native speakers.


The only filters I have are for adult content. 

Jana


----------



## Kelly B

When I told Panjandrum by PM that my results were crap, it was because I then set preferences to return results in English only. Then I got (note that the complete phrase was still in quotes, as before):

...to take... 60,000
...to taking... 18,000

Requesting English language results from the .uk domain only:
...to take... 604
...to taking... 27

This just doesn't sound right at all.


----------



## maxiogee

My results came with no filters and with "the web" selected, as against "pages from Ireland".


----------



## moodywop

I use IE on Windows XP and got the same results as Panji.

On a related topic, the issue of the statistical validity of Google results often comes up at IE. 

Google results are particularly useful for Italian usage since we have nothing like the British National Corpus or the other academic corpora - nor do we have corpus-based dictionaries or grammars (like, say, the Longman grammar and learners' dictionaries).

To be on the safe side, I don't just grab the figures and rush to post them but examine as many results as humanly possible to ascertain the quality of the sources.

I don't know whether this deserves a separate thread, but what about the following issue that came up at IE recently? A phrase which coincides with my personal use got 160,000 hits. The competing variant got 3000,000. Another forero argued that, despite the 160,000 Google hits (and although the variant I use is listed in dictionaries without any labels), foreign learners should be warned that my preferred usage is "odd".


----------



## roniy

From the responds here those from the US got results as mine and those from Europe got resoltes as panjandrum's.

But as mentioned before even though "to take care" has got more results most of them were said by none native speakers. so I guess it just isn't right.

So probably the results are based on the region , but why is that ?


----------



## panjandrum

Well that is really fascinating.
I have set IE to respond with all languages.

I wonder would it help if people could post a link to the search results as I did up in post #1?

I also tried a Yahoo search:
about 243 for *"dedicated to take care"* - HERE
about 4,940 for *"dedicated to taking care"* HERE

What bothers me about this is that although I treat all Google results with extreme caution (hence the Googlebore note) I had assumed that when I search the entire web in all languages for XXXX I will get the same results whether I search in Belfast, Bristol, Barcelona, Bologna or Boston (or anywhere else).


----------



## Whodunit

I'm using IE and got the same results as Panj.
- switched to the UK page. - no change
- tried German pages only. - no change so far
- tested it with Firefox. - no change

I'm really looking forward to seeing roniy's screenshot.


----------



## Kelly B

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22dedicated+to+take+care%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Here's one of them, although my understanding is that search result links don't last for long. I'm not sure how else to display it.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="dedicated+to+taking+care"&btnG=Search&meta=
And the other.


----------



## timpeac

My results are like Panj's and I'm not aware of having any filters on.


----------



## Jana337

Kelly B said:
			
		

> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22dedicated+to+take+care%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
> 
> Here's one of them, although my understanding is that search result links don't last for long. I'm not sure how else to display it.


No, Kelly, our forum search links perish soon, not Google search links.





> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22dedicated+to+taking+care%22&btnG=Search&meta=
> And the other.


The problem is that people in Europe (if roniy's hypothesis is correct) still get those 179 replies for "decided to take care" if they click on your link. We would need a printscreen.

Jana


----------



## brian

*From google.com:*

about *913,000* for *"dedicated to take care"*. (here)
about *19,900* for *"dedicated to taking care"*. (here)

*From google.co.uk:*

about *913,000* for *"dedicated to take care"*. (here)
about *20,900* for *"dedicated to taking care"*. (here)

*From google.ie (Ireland--to compare with Tony):*

about *913,000* for *"dedicated to take care"*. (here)
about *19,400* for *"dedicated to taking care"*. (here)

*From google.it (Italy):*

about *913,000* for *"dedicated to take care"*. (here)
about *19,400* for *"dedicated to taking care"*. (here)
---------

So it seems "dedicated to take care" retrieves the same results no matter what, but like fenix I get a slight disparity, though mine is with "dedicated to taking care."  As for my opinion on the actual grammatical issue at hand, I certainly put my two thumbs up (more if I had more) for "dedicated to tak*ing* care," so I find it strange these results.  Therefore, I did this search:

*From google.com:*

about *56,600* for *"dedicated to be"*. (here)
about *271,000* for *"dedicated to being"*. (here)

*From google.co.uk:*

about *57,300* for *"dedicated to be"*. (here)
about *285,000* for *"dedicated to being"*. (here)

*From google.ie:*

about *56,600* for *"dedicated to be"*. (here)
about *271,000* for *"dedicated to being"*. (here)

*From google.it:*

about *56,600* for *"dedicated to be"*. (here)
about *271,000* for *"dedicated to being"*. (here)

------

Better.....


----------



## ireney

The google.com and the google.gr insist on giving me 172 result with IE, Opera and Netscape (ok so I have to uninstall one of them)

here's the google.com one

here's the google.gr one


google.com gives me 19.500 for taking care

while
google.gr gives me 19.600

No filters whatsoever mind you.

Now what freaks me out is this:

Opening the google.uk using the link Brian posted for 'take care', I get 176 results with all 3 browsers

Using it in a different window myself I get 173 results

That's with Opera though

Using IE, google.uk gives 180  results

while using Netscape it gives me 179 


Small deferences but still.


P.S. I didn't vote because do I get 179 or don't I?


----------



## Vanda

From google.com.br : (Brasil)

dedicated to take care - 913,000
dedicated to taking care - 20,900


----------



## brian

My screen shot for 913,000 results for "dedicated to take care" at google.com:


----------



## Jana337

For comparison.

Jana


----------



## ireney

Oh dear! I hope it was clear that I wasn't at anyway implying that the link Brian posted didn't indeed give 913.000 hits!

At least the thingy that google uses to promote so to speak some pages works. It seems we all get the same first results

P.S. Voted. I hadn't noticed the "something similar"


----------



## brian

This is interesting!


----------



## Jana337

LOL! My page number 11 looks the same. 

Jana


----------



## timpeac

So are we to presume that google provides people situated in the US with a "deeper" search, providing more instances of the phrase in pages already mentioned?


----------



## brian

Ok so I click "repeat search with omitted results included," and I try and go past result 190 whatever, and here's what happens:











Who would like to explain why I can't go to page 19 or see result 178? 




EDIT: Just for clarification: These two images represent the same page of my Google search--the top picture is the top half, the bottom is the bottom half (after I scrolled down).  I cannot go past page 18 or result 177, even though it says I have hundreds of thousands of results left, and even though I chose not to omit any results.


----------



## ireney

So both number of results have the same number of pages and the same last results? (same with mine too by the way)

 (my last one seems to differ a bit by the way when I choose to have the omitted  included )


----------



## Jana337

ireney said:
			
		

> So both number of results have the same number of pages and the same last results? (same with mine too by the way)


 Yes, but the American figure is inflated by je ne sais quoi.

Brian, it happens quite frequently. I search for a Czech phrase, I get 7 pages but the results actually end on the second page with the same explanation - similar results omitted.

Jana


----------



## brian

OK, Jana and I have concluded that we both are able to see the exact same page and number of results, even after clicking "repeat search with omitted results included."  This total number is 177, obviously less than 179, 180, and 913,000.

So it appears Google retrieves the exact same results no matter where the search takes place or what local Google engine is used.  The difference is in the reported total number of results, all of which have been wrong.

Why?........

(outside the scope of this forum? )


----------



## timpeac

So - just to be clear I understand - people in the US are being told that there are 913,000 results including all those that are very similar (and this is not true) whilst those in Europe are being told the truth that there is a total, including similar ones, of around 175?


----------



## brian

Right Tim.  Except, I'd say the Europeans are being told "_more or less_ the truth" since Jana claims (she told me by PM) that she could only view 177 results (just like me), even though Google said it had retrieved 179.  So she is missing 2 results (not significant, I know...but what/where are they??), while I am missing about 912,800 results. 

I'm curious to know if anyone can see past results 177 (page 18 for me, but depends on your Google settings) on a Google search for "dedicated to take care of" (quotation marks included).  Be sure to click "repeat search with omitted results included."

Could I get some stats on that?


----------



## timpeac

With similar results included I can see 178 The last posts are identical to those I see in your post 127. But it tells me there should be a total 180 (although it said 177 before I searched with similar results included).


----------



## brian

So we have the same last couple results, but you see 178 and I see 177 results.  Want to go through them and find out which extra one you have??  (please say no)

Even still, you are being reported two more results than you can see, just like Jana.  This is quite a phenomenon.

As for the other search--"dedicated to tak*ing* care"--I am reported 19,400 results by Google.  I can get to result 603 (page 61 for me), at which point it gives me the "repeat search with omitted results included" option.  I click.  This lets me get to result 1000 (page 100 for me), coincidentally, leaving 18,400 reported results up in the air.  So same phenomenon.

I suppose this happens with almost every search (what would be so special about these).  Has Google been lying to us all these years?


----------



## panjandrum

Taking into account the kind of thing Google is (which is mostly a mystery to me) I am not at all surprised to see small percentage variations around the total returned. What I have difficulty with is the difference between 179 and 913,000.

It took me a long time to notice, as ireney has pointed out, that when you 913,000 people skip to page 17 of your search results, it comes to an end.

I am so relieved that these bizarre results are not the result of bizarre behaviour by roniy or me 

I have asked for information elsewhere - in the GoogleGroups.


----------



## ireney

Brian I clicked on your bignumber link, opted for ommitted to show up, last page is 18, same results, number of hits  175 






(Off topic

Yahoo.com search 244 for "take care"  6,040 for "taking care"
MSN.com search  527 and 4,682 respectively


----------



## panjandrum

The discrepancies  between number of hits and number listed could be partly due to something appearing in a number of pages below the listed link.
For example, if I have a 20-page essay that has I love turnip on every page, and every page is separately posted under the essay title page, would Google count that as 20 hits, but onlyl list the title page?


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> The discrepancies between number of hits and number listed could be partly due to something appearing in a number of pages below the listed link.
> For example, if I have a 20-page essay that has I love turnip on every page, and every page is separately posted under the essay title page, would Google count that as 20 hits, but onlyl list the title page?


But I think that is precisely what "similar results" means. It in fact doesn't mean "similar" it means "absolutely identical" I think.

Here's something interesting which proves that the results are variable - for the other phrase I generally get 20,800 (so presumably rounded). I kept refreshing the page again and again and occasionally I get 19,400 results!


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Taking into account the kind of thing Google is (which is mostly a mystery to me) I am not at all surprised to see small percentage variations around the total returned. What I have difficulty with is the difference between 179 and 913,000.


Absolutely. The other things would be nice to know - for the Americans who are getting the 913,000 it's very important to know what's going on!


----------



## aleCcowaN

I got a number of results similar to roniy's

As I always say, don't trust Google numbers as its algorithms count pages pointed from other pages that contains the word or sentence, and I suspect it cracks the sentence in words while doing this.

MSN is much more reliable to count total results:

"dedicated to take care" 521 results
"dedicated to taking care" 4690 results
"dedicated to kill" 300 results
"dedicated to killing" 1660 results

take 
MSN = 314,734,555 results
Google = 3,990,000,000 results

taking
MSN = 105,539,259 results
Google = 1,180,000,000 results

pages listed (as informed by them )

Google = 8.1 billion
MSN = 5 billion

Being Google database size 8.1 billion pages, 50% in English, can each of them contain the word "take", and more than a quarter, the word "taking"? I suspect Google page rank algorithm and word steming are tricking us.

I recommend not trusting Google to count how many uses a common word or sentence has. If you like to search about "serendipity" in Google, you get 14,200,000; and 1,099,431 in MSN; would be true that about 0.35% pages in English use this word? Give me a break!

mimicry
G: 2510000
M:232010

please! don't pull my leg!

gulosity
G:637
M:657

better!

branchiferous
G:1460 (shows 941)
M: 189 (shows 72)

a giant thingimagig still remains a thingimagig

(You're encouraged to correct my English)


----------



## cubaMania

I am located in California, USA.

From dubyadubyadubyadot google.com:
dedicated to take care 913,000
dedicated to taking care 20,600

From dubyadubyadubyadot google.co.uk:
dedicated to take care 913,000
dedicated to taking care 20,900
(But only if I have checked "Search the web" not "Search pages from UK")


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Did you ever search the title of this poll in Google: "strange google result"? 
Not that many results but about 132. Hey, this is a google search! 
(I used the .fr one)


----------



## swyves

In South America (Peru), 180 rather than 179. The extra one, coming in top of the list? This site!


----------



## Kolthoff

This is not the first time I read something related to "different" results from a search in Google.

As a matter of fact, it was alleged elsewere that the results are manipulated by Google depending on the country of origin of the search.

May be there is more to this issue than just repeated results being reported after a search.

This could lead to a somewhat different and interesting debate: How much do you trust Google´s search? Is Google filtering out results that they don´t want us to see? If that´s so, is there an unfiltered web search engine? Did someone give Google the right to think they know better than us what is appropriate for us to see in the results page? 


Regards,

Kolthoff.


----------

