I've been meaning to do a "fun" post for awhile, but haven't had the time or gotten around to it. A reality shared by many, no doubt. With the recent launch of the Professional's Guide to Advanced Search Operators, there seemed to be no better time than right now.
As everyone here knows, the web is great with all the information that is at our fingertips. The greater challenge is often in making sense of all the moving parts.
Even some of the most basic and easily accessible bits, like indexation, can leave one scratching their head, trying to figure out what is the "right" number. Of course, the reality is that there are no right numbers . . . just right now numbers. On the web though, right now is often measured by the click of a mouse or hitting "Enter."
At best, we often hope to find something that is closer to reality than anything else. It is less about the number, but the relationship of numbers from month to month, and how those numbers compare to the number of URLs we believe "exist" for a site.
Along with the advanced search operators detailed in the guide, there are also parameters that can be appended. In playing around with this several months ago, I couldn't help but chuckle and think that I "broke" Google for a second. Rest assured, Google seems to have recovered nicely, but you too can experience this for your own amusement.
After doing any kind of search, you can append the "num=100" parameter to the query string to get 100 results instead of the default 10. Another useful parameter is the "start=990" that takes you to the last page of the results, without having to click through to the end.
To recreate, just append the following to the URL query string in the address bar of your browser after running a query in Google:
&num=100&start=990
Combining these two not only lead to a result I wasn't expecting - no results - but also a situation that I think Google just wasn’t ready to handle. Poor Google . . . I made it drop an "o" . . . uh oh.
Maybe Google couldn't divide by O :)
Chuck Norris can divide by zero...
Thumbs up, but you have too much time on your hands.
haha! my thoughts precisely!
btw, I forgot how many off-topic comments per one person are allowed?
Boy, David, how I wish that was true. I actually discovered this, probably 9 months ago, and it has taken this long to actually find the time to post!!
This actually came out of an exploration I was doing to further refine the methodology we were using at Netconcepts in measuring indexation, in an effort to find an even more accurate or at least stable method.
Through testing a number of different methods, that lead me to what we typically use today, which is appending the following to the search query in Google:
This pulls in the ommitted results and jumps to the last results page, which appears to provide a more accurate and stable results count on a site: query.
Ahem, blame the CSS. Which, funny enough is not in a CSS file but on page (?!).Who would have though Google uses on-page styling..
Essentially, you know how Google displays the Goooooogle logo at the bottom of the search results, with the results page numbers underneath? This is what this is, but it seems to me someone used <span id="nc" class="nr"> instead of the usual <span id="nc">.
Hence the wrong colour (should have been a yellow O) and the weird positioning.
Post about valid CSS, anyone?
I bet the reason for the on page CSS is to reduce stress on the Google servers. It is easier for Google to serve one file than it is to serve both the SERP page and an external CSS file.Take a look at the source of the Google homepage. It is all printed on one line to decrease file size.
When you get as much traffic as Google does, the rules change. ;-)
Surely, the browser would cache the CSS file so that it would only need to be served once per session (or per day, or per visitor), rather than once per page view?
Yahoo do this, and they simply change the filename (version number) of the CSS file when the contents of that CSS file are changed or updated in some way.
Yeah, funny how rules do change when you're one of the big guys. But - and bear with me here, I'm not that technical - wouldn't it be the same thing, from a server load point of view, if you serve the CSS code with the main page or in a separate file?
Plus, as g1smd says below, it's easier to cache the CSS file, esp for pages like Google.com that one would visit quite a few times a day.
I don't know, I just think it makes it difficult for any web developer to tell the client, with a straight face, "you have to use off page CSS, it's best practice" when even Google doesn't do it.
An external CSS file adds a server request, so it could increase load. However, the inline stying means more data must be transferred per request, so its a tradeoff.
Nah, Google hasn't ever exactly been leading the charge in web standards, properly validated code. ;)
Very possible - but somehow it never crossed my mind to check their code. OK, I'm back to using tables and nobody can talk me out of it anymore :)
LMA"O"
What I don't understand is when Google drops an "O," where does the Yellow "O" go? Not only does this trick make Google drop an "o" but it also makes Google break away from its logo colors?
Poor Google :)
I actually giggled out loud at this post... causing my co-workers to all give me funny looks.
You know you're a search nerd when...
L L
O
While I certainly appreciate the link to the guide ;) I felt that would also great to link to another helpful guide on the full list of Google search parameters at YOUmoz.
Oh and almost forgot, is it possible to change places of {INSERT} and {CANCEL} buttons in the "Insert link"pop-up?
This post truly makes me feel better for all the "O's" I dropped yesterday. See, it's not just me!
Why does "dropping O's" make me think of Ronnie Barker?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCbvCRkl_4U
Four Candles.
R"O"TFL
Hi Brian,
Thanks for interesting post. I got little late here! :(
Anyway I did some analysis and found sort of reason that made Google Drop ‘O’ from its logo! ;-)
Hope you find it intersting as well. :-)
Great response Brian, nice summary and taught me a couple of bits tooo. Cheers. Ben.
I just did a search. That's hilarious. I can't believe that's never been pointed out to @mattcutts or some other Gogle engineer. ;o)
I didn't know you could do that! I tried going higher than 100 and found that's the limit too. Thanks for the info - I'll go check out your Guide too.
Thanks for the tips! I have always been wasting time by changing the results / page to 100 by clicking in the advanced options etc.
On all posts in SEOMoz for ages now, I've not been able to see images.
I had this trouble with the old Firefox 2, and now that I'm with 3 it's still being funny on certain sites...been through all the troubleshooters but still nothing...oh well, I'll have to use my imagination to fill the voids...a just don't get why Rand would wear a fruit bowl on his head...
Nice article and exploit. Google can gain free advertising with this new exploit that wont hurt anyone.
Gigle-Gigle!! Google becomes Gogle? ;)
Was going back through old posts and i'm VERY SAD to say that Google have now fixed this. Damn them, they must read SEOmoz.
Cutts... he's on top of things!!
Wow this is a great find definitely one to grab a screen shot of and say remember when. Not to mention gave me great material for the Sarah Palin Little Known Fact meme
Little Known Fact: Sarah Palin made Google drop an "O" with the &num=100&start=990 Query
wow.. interesting.. :)..
Ace - the impervious mask of the Big G is not flawless afterall...
Good post. Can't believe this hasn't been found until now.
Thanks for sharing. Google must feel a little naked now huh! Anyways, nice to see someone pointing out some of the fun in our work and research!!!
*sh pped* ;)
o
just goes to show that even the biggest of companies can make mistakes. we're all human.
The image at the end of your post is not showing.
try... https://www.flickr.com/photos/idevs/2800338603/
That one works...Now all we have to do is get it up in the above post.
Yeah, just really bad FE coding. It's not a SUPER hack or anything.