Even worse (was Re: Google Code Search)

[jesse]

On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 11:43:41PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:27:18PM +0100, Aaron Trevena wrote:
> 
> > ok.. I'm still not bored of this yet - I have an infant and facile
> > mind so I won't share the wide and varied list of rude and childish
> > insults I looked for. *smirk* *giggle*
> 
> There's the vanity search:
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=london.pm&btnG=Search
> 
> And this one seems like fun:
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=%22this+is+a+security+hole%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=
> 
> But I wouldn't have posted this except that there seems to be a bug in
> that, in the first search, for example, it is reported that there are
> about 16,100 matches but, try as I might, I can't seem to view more than
> 36.

It tells me Results 1 - 10 of about 50. (0.64 seconds).
When I click on Page 5, I get Results 31 - 35 of 35. (0.07 seconds)


> Similarly, in the second search trying to view more than the first eight
> of about 236,000 reported matches is impossible.

Results 1 - 10 of 11. (0.02 seconds)

I can't say I fault them for "immediacy over accuracy"


> -- 
> Paul Johnson - paul at pjcj.net
> http://www.pjcj.net
> 

--