>The correct search (guy-macon top-post) found 96 matches on a first
>attempt, about 350 on a second try a few minutes later. (Which
>suggests that Google returns only the matches found before some
>allotted time when a new search is entered, and continues to work on
>it in the background.)
It is more likely that the Google load balancer sent you to a
different server in the Google distributed network. Some users
always get the same one, others get a different one each time.
It all depends where you are on the net.
There is one other task that needs to be done in order to get an
accurate count. You need to go to the very last entry on the very
last page and see what the actual count is. The count given on
the first page isn't really a count; it's an estimate.
BTW, it used to be true that searching on "Guy Macon" gave the
same results as searching on Guy-Macon, but that is no longer
true.
Reply by Roberto Waltman●June 21, 20072007-06-21
Peter Jakacki wrote:
>But of course that is nothing compared to this, just google "guy macon
>top post" and you get:
>"1 - 10 of about 741,000 for guy macon TOP POST"
>Maybe by the time we get to the end of this thread he might make the
>million!
>This could be entertaining or just plain "egocentric".
Searching for "guy macon top post" as you show, with the quotes,
brings up exactly 0 matches. (That will change when this message and
any replies are digested by Google, of course.)
Removing the quotes brings "about 747,000" matches, most of them
totally unrelated, like this, on the Ocmulgee National Monument:
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nm/ga_ocmul.htm
Relevant sections:
"Today's Gear GUY: "How can I attach a camcorder..."
"...at the edge of the present city of MACON, about 4 miles
from the geographic center of Georgia,..."
"The structures that stood on TOP at each stage..."
"The English set up a trading POST at Ocmulgee sometime around
1690,..."
The correct search (guy-macon top-post) found 96 matches on a first
attempt, about 350 on a second try a few minutes later. (Which
suggests that Google returns only the matches found before some
allotted time when a new search is entered, and continues to work on
it in the background.)
Roberto Waltman
[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]
Reply by Guy Macon●June 20, 20072007-06-20
Peter "Jackass" Jakacki wrote:
> Just google CBFalconer top post and you get:
> "1 - 10 of about 20,600 for CBFALCONER TOP POST"
About 20,600? Who says it's a distraction.
>But of course that is nothing compared to this, (snip)
The only thing that your test shows is that Peter Jakacki is too
dimwitted to use Google correctly. The correct search phrase
would be [ CBFalconer "top post" ] not [ CBFalconer top post ].
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,160 for CBFalconer "top post".
But even correcting that dimwitted error would still lead to
the that conclusion that Peter Jakacki is too dimwitted to
use Google correctly. To get the actual number, go to the
last URL that Google brings up. It's on a page that says
Results 131 - 133 of 133 for CBFalconer "top post".
The answer is 133, not 20,600. You are off by a factor of 155.
Do the same with my name and the numbers go from 754,000 to 360
to 107 -- your answer is 7047 times too high this time.
Like I always say, top-posting is a great way for idiots to
self-indentify so that they may be killfiled.
___ ___ ___ ___
/ /\ / /\ /__/\ /__/|
/ /::\ / /::\ \ \:\ | |:|
/ /:/\:\ ___ ___ / /:/\:\ \ \:\ | |:|
/ /:/~/:/ /__/\ / /\ / /:/ \:\ _____\__\:\ __| |:|
/__/:/ /:/ \ \:\ / /:/ /__/:/ \__\:\ /__/::::::::\ /__/\_|:|____
\ \:\/:/ \ \:\ /:/ \ \:\ / /:/ \ \:\~~\~~\/ \ \:\/:::::/
\ \::/ \ \:\/:/ \ \:\ /:/ \ \:\ ~~~ \ \::/~~~~
\ \:\ \ \::/ \ \:\/:/ \ \:\ \ \:\
\ \:\ \__\/ \ \::/ \ \:\ \ \:\
\__\/ \__\/ \__\/ \__\/
Reply by Peter Jakacki●June 20, 20072007-06-20
But of course that is nothing compared to this, just google "guy macon
top post" and you get:
"1 - 10 of about 741,000 for guy macon TOP POST"
Maybe by the time we get to the end of this thread he might make the
million!
This could be entertaining or just plain "egocentric".
*Peter*
Peter Jakacki wrote:
> Just google CBFalconer top post and you get:
> "1 - 10 of about 20,600 for CBFALCONER TOP POST"
>
> About 20,600? Who says it's a distraction.
>
> Now scrolling through the quotes to get to the new post, that's a
> distraction :>)
>
> *Peter*
>
>
> Donald wrote:
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>> Donald wrote:
>>>
>>>> Guy Macon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> shinystartrek@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was looking for an alternative to VNC1L, not a product that
>>>>>> has VNC1L inside!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't top-post.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that brought usefull information to this discussion.
>>>> Mother Falconer would be proud.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, yes. However notice all the info that has been lost by
>>> ignoring Usenet standards.
>>>
>> LOST !!???
>>
>> This thread is now lost due to losing focus, not loss of "Usenet
>> standards".
>>
>> If your interested and able to add to the conversation, information
>> will be shared.
>>
>> Stressing over top post vs. bottom post is just a distraction.
>>
>> donald
Reply by Peter Jakacki●June 20, 20072007-06-20
Just google CBFalconer top post and you get:
"1 - 10 of about 20,600 for CBFALCONER TOP POST"
About 20,600? Who says it's a distraction.
Now scrolling through the quotes to get to the new post, that's a
distraction :>)
*Peter*
Donald wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> Donald wrote:
>>
>>> Guy Macon wrote:
>>>
>>>> shinystartrek@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was looking for an alternative to VNC1L, not a product that
>>>>> has VNC1L inside!!
>>>>
>>>> Please don't top-post.
>>>
>>> Well, that brought usefull information to this discussion.
>>> Mother Falconer would be proud.
>>
>>
>> Well, yes. However notice all the info that has been lost by
>> ignoring Usenet standards.
>>
> LOST !!???
>
> This thread is now lost due to losing focus, not loss of "Usenet
> standards".
>
> If your interested and able to add to the conversation, information will
> be shared.
>
> Stressing over top post vs. bottom post is just a distraction.
>
> donald
Reply by Donald●June 20, 20072007-06-20
CBFalconer wrote:
> Donald wrote:
>
>>Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>>>shinystartrek@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was looking for an alternative to VNC1L, not a product that
>>>>has VNC1L inside!!
>>>
>>>Please don't top-post.
>>
>>Well, that brought usefull information to this discussion.
>>Mother Falconer would be proud.
>
>
> Well, yes. However notice all the info that has been lost by
> ignoring Usenet standards.
>
LOST !!???
This thread is now lost due to losing focus, not loss of "Usenet standards".
If your interested and able to add to the conversation, information will
be shared.
Stressing over top post vs. bottom post is just a distraction.
donald
Reply by CBFalconer●June 19, 20072007-06-19
Donald wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> shinystartrek@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I was looking for an alternative to VNC1L, not a product that
>>> has VNC1L inside!!
>>
>> Please don't top-post.
>
> Well, that brought usefull information to this discussion.
> Mother Falconer would be proud.
> shinystartrek@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>I was looking for an alternative to VNC1L, not a product that has
>>VNC1L inside!!
>
>
> Please don't top-post.
>
Well, that brought usefull information to this discussion.
Mother Falconer would be proud.
donald
Reply by Guy Macon●June 19, 20072007-06-19
shinystartrek@gmail.com wrote:
>I was looking for an alternative to VNC1L, not a product that has
>VNC1L inside!!
>I was looking for an alternative to VNC1L, not a product that has
>VNC1L inside!!
If you aren't willing to use a VNC1L, your choices are:
Find a chip that you *do* like. AT89C5131 perhaps. Google is your
friend: http://www.google.com/search?q=microcontroller+%22onboard+usb%22
Use an embedded PC-on-a chip system.
Write bit banging code to do it on the micro of your choice
-- a lot of work and the result will be slow.