[OT] how to get Google Images to show me all the search results?
William December Starr
discworld maps
in the search box, with no quotes, and click on "Search images".
I get "About 148,000 results" (your mileage may vary; I have
"SafeSearch" off) and the first three rows of about five images
each. (Sometimes if a row contains a bunch of images that are tall
and skinny, there'll be six of them.)
I scroll to the bottom of the screen. It says "Page 16" and at the
bottom displays a "Show more results" button.
I click on the "Show more results" button, and it disappears,
replaced by the first row of "Page 17". Okay. I scroll to the
bottom of the now-much-longer screen.
It says "Page 51." The last row of Page 51 only has three images.
There is no "Show more results" button below it, or anywhere else.
Fifty-one pages of three rows each, at five or six images per row,
does not remotely add up to "About 148,000 results". How do I get
Google to show me more results, preferably (eventually) all of them?
-- wds
Michael A. Terrell
They never showed everything, even in the older images search.
Something similar happens in Google web searches. 10,00 plus results,
then it gave me 23. Click the show similar results button gives a
couple more and most of the hits don't have even one keyword in the page
source. It makes you wonder if they are indexing pages by the ads
rather than by content?
--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.
Garrett Wollman
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>Fifty-one pages of three rows each, at five or six images per row,
>does not remotely add up to "About 148,000 results". How do I get
>Google to show me more results, preferably (eventually) all of them?
You can't. There may not be any more. The number 148,000 is an
approximation based on a statistical summary of Google's index; it is
usually larger than the actual number. They could compute a more
accurate number, but this would require much more computational
resources and therefore greatly slow down page loading. It's easier
to compute an approximation.
The search results themselves are also an approximation (albeit a
somewhat better one, since they can spread the computation over
multiple page loads). Different users at different will see somewhat
different results (although how the results are manipulated is
considered a very important trade secret, so you will never be able to
find out the "real" answer).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Let's say I go to <http://images.google.com> and put
>
> discworld maps
>
> in the search box, with no quotes, and click on "Search images".
>
> I get "About 148,000 results" (your mileage may vary; I have
> "SafeSearch" off)
Try turning SafeSearch ON. Then try adding more search terms. Yes,
this doesn't make any sense, but it does sometimes increase the
number of results.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Joseph Nebus
>Fifty-one pages of three rows each, at five or six images per row,
>does not remotely add up to "About 148,000 results". How do I get
>Google to show me more results, preferably (eventually) all of them?
Have you necessarily ruled out taking key Google staff hostage?
I'd recommend taking whoever works in their Usenet division,
but they haven't got anyone.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Nance
> In <iu8h90$8sf$1...@panix1.panix.com> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:
>
>>Fifty-one pages of three rows each, at five or six images per row,
>>does not remotely add up to "About 148,000 results". How do I get
>>Google to show me more results, preferably (eventually) all of them?
>
> Have you necessarily ruled out taking key Google staff hostage?
>
> I'd recommend taking whoever works in their Usenet division,
> but they haven't got anyone.
Yeah, they've *really* broken that end of things - no new posts
registering at all, for example. Is there any chance this is
temporary, maybe related to the rollout of the new Google Groups,
and/or their stated 7/1 date for the new GG profiles state?
And, though I mentioned this elsewhere, I'll add it here
just because it might be germane:
For what it's worth, at their "overview" page:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!overview
There's a sentence/link shortly after the "Welcome..." which says:
If you have feedback, we'd love to hear what you think.
Tony
Wayne Throop
: For what it's worth, at their "overview" page:
: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!overview
:
: There's a sentence/link shortly after the "Welcome..." which says:
: If you have feedback, we'd love to hear what you think.
Google hears all prayers, but sometimes the answer is "no".
Robert Carnegie
> Fifty-one pages of three rows each, at five or six images per row,
> does not remotely add up to "About 148,000 results". How do I get
> Google to show me more results, preferably (eventually) all of them?
Isn't that enough already? If you get that far and haven't seen what
you want, you normally should consider tuning your terms for a new
search. If you want Terry Pratchett's Discworld and locations therein/
on, maybe use "mapp", two Ps.
Someone already suggested that the 148,000 results have no more
actually-there reality than the $14,800,000 that somebody e-mailing
from Nigeria always claims to be able to smuggle to you, although I
suppose Google won't like the simile.
Then again, the 148,000 figure may include many duplicate images which
you won't want to see more than once in an image search, although
you've probably seen lots of what appear to be duplicates. If two
people convert the same picture to JPEG then they're liable to get
different output files, at least for a few pixels.
The third parties who study the workings of Google to try (usually) to
improve their clients' exposure in search results, some of whom should
be beaten until they promise to stop, refer to that activity as
"Search Engine Optimization" or "SEO", and they include images.
Sometimes they give away tricks of their trade for free, which you
could perhaps interpret to improve your searching. I Google (seo
images) and I see "About 335,000,000 results", which suggests that the
SEO people are addressing this area aggressively.
William December Starr
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Fifty-one pages of three rows each, at five or six images per
>> row, does not remotely add up to "About 148,000 results". How do
>> I get Google to show me more results, preferably (eventually) all
>> of them?
>
> You can't. There may not be any more. The number 148,000 is an
> approximation based on a statistical summary of Google's index; it
> is usually larger than the actual number. They could compute a
> more accurate number, but this would require much more
> computational resources and therefore greatly slow down page
> loading. It's easier to compute an approximation.
Yeah, but an approximation that's off by two orders of magnitude
compared to the actual number of search results presented? Zoiks.
But thanks for the answer/explanation.
-- wds
William December Starr
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> said:
> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> Fifty-one pages of three rows each, at five or six images per
>> row, does not remotely add up to "About 148,000 results". How do
>> I get Google to show me more results, preferably (eventually) all
>> of them?
>
> Isn't that enough already? If you get that far and haven't seen
> what you want, you normally should consider tuning your terms for
> a new search. If you want Terry Pratchett's Discworld and
> locations therein/ on, maybe use "mapp", two Ps.
Sometimes when I run an image search, after I've found what I was
looking for I find myself just cruising through the rest of results
looking for pictures that catch my eye as interesting and/or WTF?
regardless of how close they conceptually are/appear to be to the
search terms.
I feel short-changed when I'm "promised" N chances at "ooh, that
looks interesting, I think I'll click on it" and then only get less
that one one-hundredth of than N.
-- wds
Robert Carnegie
> In article <3b70cc85-6aff-44c2-b82b-6f53c4e98...@g9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Shrug. Now you've explained that, it comes to mind that Google image
results used to be less relevant, the further down the result set you
looked, till it wasn't clear at all why you were seeing any of the
pictures. I mean, I just got the map of Earthsea... so maybe that's
where to stop?
If you're just playing, you can try the "Find similar images", which
probably doesn't...
William December Starr
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> said:
> If you're just playing, you can try the "Find similar images",
> which probably doesn't...
Where is this "Find similar images"?
-- wds
Robert Carnegie
> In article <14bbcf06-fcb1-41cc-ab98-a23590b2b...@29g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> said:
>
> > If you're just playing, you can try the "Find similar images",
> > which probably doesn't...
>
> Where is this "Find similar images"?
Ah. At the bottom of the image results page, click "Basic version".
The Opera browser and/or a United Kingdom connection may retain a
setting to deliver that version by default, but I've just found that
both Internet Explorer and Firefox on this new-ish PC are pre-set to
what now seems to be "Standard version". Which is the one that looks
like the Royal Academy, as in,
<http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jacademy.htm>
William December Starr
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> said:
>> Where is this "Find similar images"?
>
> Ah. At the bottom of the image results page, click "Basic version".
Right. Then what? Even in the basic version I'm not seeing... Oh.
Fucking "Purloined Letter" syndrome... I was looking for a single
"Find similar images" button for the whole page, not a one attached
to each image thumbnail (and customized to that particular image).
-- wds
Robert Carnegie
> In article <737b79af-129a-4fa4-b420-2ad5eede2...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> said:
>
> >> Where is this "Find similar images"?
>
> > Ah. At the bottom of the image results page, click "Basic version".
>
> Right. Then what? Even in the basic version I'm not seeing... Oh.
>
> Fucking "Purloined Letter" syndrome... I was looking for a single
> "Find similar images" button for the whole page, not a one attached
> to each image thumbnail (and customized to that particular image).
I noticed afterwards, there's also a "Similar" link when you hover
over one picture in the new "Standard version".
obamasca...@gmail.com
Robert Carnegie
counts down to 2,000,000,000,000, it thinks it's finished.
pete...@gmail.com
the way it presents results.
When I do an image search on 'cat', I get a couple hundred images, with an
option for more.
pt
Kevrob
"Go stick your head in a pig."
Sharw and enjoy!
Kevin R
Quadibloc
> It says "Page 51." The last row of Page 51 only has three images.
> There is no "Show more results" button below it, or anywhere else.
Google Image Search will let me see. (They're big pages, requiring a lot of
scrolling down to see. This is on Firefox; image results are displayed
differently on my smartphone.) For a *regular* Google search, I forget
what the limit is, but there also is one, and I've run into it once or twice.
For Google News, though, the disparity is ridiculous - they'll say there are
like 8,000 related news stories, and when you click to show them all, you'll
get *three*.
I don't know of any way to avoid this - the only workaround is to add search
terms to bring one's desired result into the limit.
John Savard
pete...@gmail.com
time.
FWIW, I'm also only seeing two pages of cat pics.
Jerry Brown
wrote:
>Sharw and enjoy!
>
>Kevin R
Jerry Brown
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
The Starmaker
if you want to see more cats you search for "lots of cats".
but the reason why Google is the biggest search engine is because it has
more than others, and if others saw all
then they will steal all, and then they will be bigger than Google.
"cat" means one cat. "cats" mean more than one cat.
How many cat is there in cat?
The Starmaker
Google. So, goolge needs to hide it's results from the theives.
Robert Carnegie
and a "Show more results" button at the end, which makes
the page longer, once. It is a lot of cats, nevertheless.
I think Google doesn't want to show me all the cats -
and anyway, pictures probably are getting added faster
than I can scroll. I'm slightly afraid to search for
"all the cats".
Previous suggestions stand - to use adjectives, or to
choose one picture and then "Show similar". I did that
with one picture of a cat doing - well, never mind,
but I got a lot more pictures of cats doing that.
With hindsight, it was my mistake.
Steve Coltrin
>>> Google hears all prayers, but sometimes the answer is "no".
>>
>>I think that text actually translates as
>>"Go stick your head in a pig."
>
> ...and is no longer illuminated.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press