Myth and Reality of the Google Search Results in Terms of Count Estimation

1. Myth and Reality of the Google Search Results in Terms of Count Estimation Dr Fayaz Ahmad loan Assistant Librarian Central University of Kashmir,Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir (India) E-mail:drfayazlone@gmail.com Syed ReyazRufai Librarian, Central University of Kashmir,Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir (India) E-mail: librarian@cukashmir.ac.in

2. Google- an introduction • Google has a well-deserved reputation as the top choice search engine for searching the web not only due to its huge database size but also relevance ranking. Google provides both comprehensive coverage of the web alongwith great relevance and is highly recommended as the top choice search engine for information access. Beyond Google search, the company has rolled out an astonishing number of tools, sites, and applications and almost all Internet surfers are Googling daily on Gmail, Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Images, Google Docs, among many others.

3. Purpose of the study • Google is the most widely used search engine for information seeking worldwide. It provides large number of results (hits) on any area of subject. This paper aims to assess the myth and reality of the Google search results in terms of count estimation.

4. Research Design • The study was started with the selection of search terms. The terms were selected from the prevailing global problems in various fields like terrorism, HIV/AIDS, global warming, economic recession and female foeticide. Each term was submitted to the various types of Google searches (boxes) like web search, book search, news search in turn, using the basic or simple search. The total number of results shown by the search engine was noted. Later on the search results were counted manually while going from one page to another to know the actual number of search results.

5. Google Web Search • The data shows a great variation in the results shown by Google and the actual number of results on all search terms. At the first instance, the Google Web claims that it has omitted some entries (duplication results) similar to already displayed. When the search is repeated with the omitted results included still, the Google provides less than 1000 results to all search terms, minimum to terrorism (840) and maximum (1000) to economic recession. No doubt, the Google search adds some more results after including the omitted results but still the difference is huge which puts a big question on the Google count estimation. The ratio of the search results shown and the actual search results vary greatly; the highest variation is for global warming (294771:1) and least for female foeticide (1061:1)

6. Google Scholar Search • The variation in the results shown and the actual number of results on all search terms continues in the Google Scholar, however, the difference isn’t as wide as in case of Google Web. The Google Scholar shows the maximum results for HIV/AIDS whereas actually among all the five search terms, HIV/AIDS has the least number of actual results (998). The highest variation is for HIV/AIDS (1303:1) and least for female foeticide (3:1)

7. Google Book Search • The variation in the results shown and the actual number of results on all search terms also continues in the Google Books. Google Books shows the maximum results for HIV/AIDS (853) followed by economic recession (740) and the least number of results on terrorism (522). The Google Books also shows wide variation in ratio as the maximum variation is in Global Warming (58458:1) and least in female foeticide (29:1)

8. Google Blog Search • Google Blogs also shows the same trend in count estimation variations. However, in the Google Blogs, the maximum number of actual results is less as compared to the Google Web and Google Scholar. The highest number of results is for economic recession (727) and the least for female foeticide (534). The term economic recession continues to fetch more actual results from Google Web, Google Scholar and Google Blog searches. The variation in ratio is higher than Google Scholar and less than the Google Web in Google Blogs.

9. Google News Search • The Google News brings the least number of results as compared to the Google Web, Google Scholar and Google Blog. The difference and the ratio between the number of results shown and the actual number of results is also less as compared the other search tools. The maximum variation in ratio is in economic recession (178:1) and least in female foeticide (8:1)

10. Google Video Search • The variation in the results shown and the actual number of hits on all search terms is very vast in Google Video. Google Video retrieves the maximum actual number of results (i.e. 1000) for all the five search terms including the omitted results. However, the difference and ratio between the number of results shown and the actual number of results is large as compared the other search tools except Google Web

11. Findingsand suggestions • The Google search tools show results retrieved from thousands to hundred millions whereas for any query, the Google fetches upto (at the maximum) one thousand (1000) results (hits) only. This reveals that there is great variation in the results shown and the actual number of results on all search terms in all search tools/features like Google Web, Google Blog, Google News, Google Scholar and Google Video of the Google.

12. Findingsand suggestions • The ratio of the results shows that Google doesn’t follow any special logic in count estimation as it greatly varies from search term to term. Goole Web and Google Video fetch more results and hence the maximum variation in ratio is revealed in them as compared to others. Further, the term female foeticide fetch least results among all terms almost in all search features and depict least variation in ratio. It reveals that “more the results shown, the greater is the variation in the ratio and less the hits shown, less the variation in the ratio”.

13. Findingsand suggestions • Google Video fetches more actual results. This depicts that the Web isn’t only a hub of textual information but multimedia sources as well and users shouldn’t only rely only on textual information but search the information in other formats as well to satisfy their personal, academic and research needs.

14. Findingsand suggestions • The information seekers mostly retrieve upto the first fifty results routinely and waste a lot of time. This practice need to be changed and all results (i.e.1000) should be retrieved and checked constantly. Later on, the Google Alert service can be handy for updating and accessing the upcoming information.

15. Research Limitations • The research is conducted on only one search engine; caution should be taken in generalising the findings. However, the other search engines should also be included in future studies that will not only reveal their accuracy but also will allow us to make comparison between and among search engines. The other limitation is that the duplication results (hits) were not identified that could have allowed more accuracy in results. Furthermore, because of the constant update of Google index, the count might vary in a short time.

17. Ask Anything