Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #14312 > unrolled thread

OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  OT by some standards.  Getting a google hit that is not a hit.  micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 14:21 -0400
    Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-07-26 20:28 +0200
      Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 14:43 -0400
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-26 19:52 +0100
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 15:19 -0400
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-07-26 17:24 -0400
              Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-26 23:51 +0200
              Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 00:05 -0400
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-26 23:50 +0200
      Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Sam Pichai <Sam.Pichai@gmail.com> - 2025-07-26 20:14 +0000
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-07-26 22:45 +0200
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 20:47 +0000
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-07-26 22:55 +0200
              Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-07-26 16:18 -0500
    Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-26 19:42 +0100
      Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 15:18 -0400
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-26 20:26 +0100
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-11-14 23:14 -0500
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-26 22:25 +0200
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 20:45 +0000
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-26 23:55 +0200
              Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-07-26 15:51 -0700
                Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 22:58 +0000
              Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 22:53 +0000
                Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2025-07-26 22:58 +0000
                Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 00:36 -0400
                  Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-27 07:02 +0000
                    Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 11:52 -0400
                      Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-27 16:20 +0000
                        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-28 22:06 -0400
                          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-29 04:22 +0200
                Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-27 14:40 +0200
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-26 23:54 +0200
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-07-26 15:46 -0700
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-27 08:41 +0100
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 11:55 -0400
    Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-26 20:50 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#14337 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

On 2025-07-26 22:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even
>> "+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:
> 
> Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada
> so they wouldn't be written in international format. 

Actually, they are. But the caller pays the international part according 
to his contract.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14340 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 23:55:55 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2025-07-26 22:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even
>>> "+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:
>> 
>> Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada
>> so they wouldn't be written in international format.

Anyone using a cell phone is employing the 'international format'.

>
>Actually, they are. But the caller pays the international part according 
>to his contract.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14343 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

Nobody  <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 23:55:55 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
><robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2025-07-26 22:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even
>>>> "+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:
>>> 
>>> Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada
>>> so they wouldn't be written in international format.
>
>Anyone using a cell phone is employing the 'international format'.

GSM phones dial in international format. I don't know about others.

>>Actually, they are. But the caller pays the international part according 
>>to his contract.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14341 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2025-07-26 22:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>>>Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even
>>>"+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:

>>Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada
>>so they wouldn't be written in international format. 

>Actually, they are. But the caller pays the international part according 
>to his contract.

Yes, it's possible but it's usually not done.

Why would the call center pay inward WATTS charges from countries
they have no practical means of serving?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14342 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

In <1063m9e$2jk3c$1@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2025-07-26 22:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>>>>Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even
>>>>"+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:

>>>Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada
>>>so they wouldn't be written in international format. 

>>Actually, they are. But the caller pays the international part according 
>>to his contract.

>Yes, it's possible but it's usually not done.

>Why would the call center pay inward WATTS charges from countries
>they have no practical means of serving?

banks and credit card agencies, for two examples.


-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14346 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:53:34 -0000 (UTC),
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2025-07-26 22:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even
>>>>"+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:
>
>>>Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada
>>>so they wouldn't be written in international format. 
>
>>Actually, they are. But the caller pays the international part according 
>>to his contract.
>
>Yes, it's possible but it's usually not done.
>
>Why would the call center pay inward WATTS charges from countries
>they have no practical means of serving?

For the same reason cc companies accept collect calls, advise you on the
card to call collect.  For the sake of customers who are permanently or
temporarily in those countries.   I've called one of my credit card
companies in the USA from abroad on 3 separate occasions, but I'm not
saying I used an 800 number. I don't remember. 


FWIW
Two different gas stations, from the same chain, charged me for twice as
much gas as would fit in the tank.  Finally I learned that they tend to
put a hold on a large amount that they reduce later, but since one is
done filling the tank in 5 miniutes, why don't they correct the amount
after 10 minutes, or 30, or when the pump shows that the pumping session
has ended.  Instead it takes them days.  Very strange. 
  I saw a vending machine in southern Virgiania that took credit cards
and had a sign on it warning people that they would be charged 3x the
price of the candy bar, until the charge was adjusted later.   Very
strange. 

Once my card was stolen.

Once I lost a card.  That was a Capitol ONe card.  For years they
advertised No foreign exchange fees, obviously courting those who travel
internationally.  So before a trip I got a card.  When I lost it I
wanted to log in on the laptop or the phone to report it, and see if
charges had been made against it. But of course they wanted to verify it
was me.... by calling my cell phone.  But my cell phone was with me, in
another country with a different sim and a different phone number. Maybe
they would have called my home phone but there was no one there to
answer.  They apparently didn't plan for this, despite courting
international travelers.  When I called on the phone they oouldn't
figure out what to do.  He said I should have used the phone app before
leaving the US.  Now they tell me.   Afaik, they still have not fixed
this. I'm glad I take 2 credit cards and 2 debit cards when I travel.
Some other banks or credit card compaies give up to six ways to confirm,
including email addresses.  Not Capitol One, only phone numbers. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14347 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:53:34 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 2025-07-26 22:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even
>>>>>"+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:

>>>>Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada
>>>>so they wouldn't be written in international format. 

>>>Actually, they are. But the caller pays the international part according 
>>>to his contract.

>>Yes, it's possible but it's usually not done.

>>Why would the call center pay inward WATTS charges from countries
>>they have no practical means of serving?

>For the same reason cc companies accept collect calls, advise you on the
>card to call collect.  For the sake of customers who are permanently or
>temporarily in those countries.   I've called one of my credit card
>companies in the USA from abroad on 3 separate occasions, but I'm not
>saying I used an 800 number. I don't remember. 

If I anticipated this I wouldn't call on the toll free number. Airlines
always have regular numbers to call from abroad.

>FWIW
>Two different gas stations, from the same chain, charged me for twice as
>much gas as would fit in the tank.  Finally I learned that they tend to
>put a hold on a large amount that they reduce later, but since one is
>done filling the tank in 5 miniutes, why don't they correct the amount
>after 10 minutes, or 30, or when the pump shows that the pumping session
>has ended.  Instead it takes them days.  Very strange. 

You weren't charged. A hold is not a charge. The hold does not go to the
merchant. A hold is a temporary reduction of your credit limit. Yes, it
should be released once the final bill is known but it's always released
by the next banking day.

>  I saw a vending machine in southern Virgiania that took credit cards
>and had a sign on it warning people that they would be charged 3x the
>price of the candy bar, until the charge was adjusted later.   Very
>strange.

I cannot image how that's not disallowed under network rules. There is
no reason for it.

>. . . 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14355 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 27 Jul 2025 07:02:27 -0000 (UTC),
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>
>>FWIW
>>Two different gas stations, from the same chain, charged me for twice as
>>much gas as would fit in the tank.  Finally I learned that they tend to
>>put a hold on a large amount that they reduce later, but since one is
>>done filling the tank in 5 miniutes, why don't they correct the amount
>>after 10 minutes, or 30, or when the pump shows that the pumping session
>>has ended.  Instead it takes them days.  Very strange. 
>
>You weren't charged. A hold is not a charge.

Yes, I know now that it was a hold, but the email and the webpage made
no distinction between a charge and a hold.  Other gas stations in the
same country charged only for the gas I actually took.  And they know
when the nozzle has been put back onto the pump, because if you try to
start pumping again, it again wants your credit card, to start a new
trasnaction.  So by the time you're done pumping, they know you're done
and what the final charge is. So they could replace the hold with a
charge then, like the other gas stations did. 
 

> The hold does not go to the
>merchant. A hold is a temporary reduction of your credit limit. Yes, it
>should be released once the final bill is known but it's always released
>by the next banking day.

Not always that quickly, at least not that bank then. 

>>  I saw a vending machine in southern Virgiania that took credit cards
>>and had a sign on it warning people that they would be charged 3x the
>>price of the candy bar, until the charge was adjusted later.   Very
>>strange.
>
>I cannot image how that's not disallowed under network rules. There is
>no reason for it.
>
>>. . . 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14357 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>Sun, 27 Jul 2025 07:02:27 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>FWIW
>>>Two different gas stations, from the same chain, charged me for twice as
>>>much gas as would fit in the tank.  Finally I learned that they tend to
>>>put a hold on a large amount that they reduce later, but since one is
>>>done filling the tank in 5 miniutes, why don't they correct the amount
>>>after 10 minutes, or 30, or when the pump shows that the pumping session
>>>has ended.  Instead it takes them days.  Very strange. 

>>You weren't charged. A hold is not a charge.

>Yes, I know now that it was a hold, but the email and the webpage made
>no distinction between a charge and a hold.

Then you misread something or misunderstood. If you aren't paying it,
it's not a charge. It's a temporary hold on your credit.

>Other gas stations in the same country charged only for the gas I actually
>took.

The gas station in question charged you for the gas you purchased. If
they charged you for gas you didn't purchase, that's fraud.

>And they know
>when the nozzle has been put back onto the pump, because if you try to
>start pumping again, it again wants your credit card, to start a new
>trasnaction.  So by the time you're done pumping, they know you're done
>and what the final charge is. So they could replace the hold with a
>charge then, like the other gas stations did.

It's still not a charge. The hold monies aren't paid to the merchant.
You've gotten this completely wrong.

>>The hold does not go to the
>>merchant. A hold is a temporary reduction of your credit limit. Yes, it
>>should be released once the final bill is known but it's always released
>>by the next banking day.

>Not always that quickly, at least not that bank then.

Dude, if it's not released by the next banking day, then you've got a
complaint against the credit card network as they aren't following their
own rules. It's not the merchant placing the credit hold but its bank.
If the hold hasn't been released, then their bank failed to follow the
rules they are obliged to follow. You make a complaint through your
bank. Even if the banks fail to follow the rules, the merchant still
isn't going to receive money from you because a hold is not a charge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14361 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 27 Jul 2025 16:20:05 -0000 (UTC),
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>Sun, 27 Jul 2025 07:02:27 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>>>FWIW
>>>>Two different gas stations, from the same chain, charged me for twice as
>>>>much gas as would fit in the tank.  Finally I learned that they tend to
>>>>put a hold on a large amount that they reduce later, but since one is
>>>>done filling the tank in 5 miniutes, why don't they correct the amount
>>>>after 10 minutes, or 30, or when the pump shows that the pumping session
>>>>has ended.  Instead it takes them days.  Very strange. 
>
>>>You weren't charged. A hold is not a charge.
>
>>Yes, I know now that it was a hold, but the email and the webpage made
>>no distinction between a charge and a hold.
>
>Then you misread something or misunderstood. 

Oh please.  How do you know what my credit card company sends me? 

>If you aren't paying it,
>it's not a charge. 

That's not what makes it not a charge, because I'm not paying it until
the end of the month even if it is a charge.   

>It's a temporary hold on your credit.
>
>>Other gas stations in the same country charged only for the gas I actually
>>took.
>
>The gas station in question charged you for the gas you purchased. If
>they charged you for gas you didn't purchase, that's fraud.

You're still relying on what you think is my careless use of charge vs.
hold. You know I didn't say the final charge was more than I bought.  

>>And they know
>>when the nozzle has been put back onto the pump, because if you try to
>>start pumping again, it again wants your credit card, to start a new
>>trasnaction.  So by the time you're done pumping, they know you're done
>>and what the final charge is. So they could replace the hold with a
>>charge then, like the other gas stations did.
>
>It's still not a charge.

In the previous 4+ lines I called it a hold.  How many times are you
going to make an issue of my calling it a charge earlier. 

> The hold monies aren't paid to the merchant.

But they look like they are, when no distinction is made between a hold
and a charge. 

>You've gotten this completely wrong.

Nope. 

>>>The hold does not go to the
>>>merchant. A hold is a temporary reduction of your credit limit. Yes, it
>>>should be released once the final bill is known but it's always released
>>>by the next banking day.
>
>>Not always that quickly, at least not that bank then.
>
>Dude, if it's not released by the next banking day, then you've got a
>complaint against the credit card network as they aren't following their
>own rules.

How do you know what this bank's rules are?   I'm not sure but my
recollection is that it took 3 or 4 days.   Why should I complain?  I
don't pay the bill until the end of the billing month.  Unless I was
really short of credit and bought an awful lot of gas (or something else
that did this) the problem is not how long they keep the hold.  The
problem is that they don't distinguish between a hold and a charge, and
when one doesn't know about holds and/or can't fathom why one would be
needed once the pump turns off, it's alarming to be get an email that
lists an amount 2 or 3x what the real bill was. 

BTW, I complained at one of the two gas stations and the manager didn't
speak much English.  He said two or three times just two English words
that meant I would't have to pay, but he didn't know enough English to
say more. He knew right off the bat what I was complaining about and he
had clearly gotten the same complaint several or many times before. Once
I found out what had happened, I printed out an apology/explanation, so
he could show it to someone who would translate, and he got the idea,
smiled, and gave me an ice coffee. 

> It's not the merchant placing the credit hold but its bank.
>If the hold hasn't been released, then their bank failed to follow the
>rules they are obliged to follow. 

Maybe, but I don't care. 

>You make a complaint through your

You complain if you want to.  I don't care. 

>bank. Even if the banks fail to follow the rules, the merchant still
>isn't going to receive money from you because a hold is not a charge.

You've said that 4 times. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14362 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

micky wrote:
[..snip..] Offtopic shit 

> You've said that 4 times. 

You've posted offtopic shit way more than 4 times the last half year.
So please fuck off and die.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14352 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

On 2025-07-27 00:53, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2025-07-26 22:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>> Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even
>>>> "+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:
> 
>>> Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada
>>> so they wouldn't be written in international format.
> 
>> Actually, they are. But the caller pays the international part according
>> to his contract.
> 
> Yes, it's possible but it's usually not done.
> 
> Why would the call center pay inward WATTS charges from countries
> they have no practical means of serving?

For example, you are abroad and you have to call your bank, or your air 
ship company. And the number you have is the toll free one. No problem, 
you dial, it works, but you pay the international part of the fee. It is 
all planned in the international contracts between the providers.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14338 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

On 2025-07-26 22:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even
>> "+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:
> 
> Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada
> so they wouldn't be written in international format. Also, never search
> with the trunk code "1" which is coincidentally the same as the country
> code.
> 
> Either search as a 10-digit string 8554708800 or as a phrase of three
> words "855 470 8800". The second will take care of the variety of ways
> such numbers are written with and without hyphens or with and without
> spaces. Some people annoyingly use periods. The punctuation is ignored
> but the spaces are used as word separators.

"+18554708800" gets a hit on the Truecaller site.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14339 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:25:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2025-07-26 21:18, micky wrote:
>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 19:42:20 +0100, Andy
>> Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> micky wrote:
>>>
>>>> The number to call was 855-470-8800.> I googled that number and the first hit I got was
>>>> <https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/bge-reminds-customers-to-stay-vigilant-avoid-energy-related-scams>
>>>> Yet that number does not appear in the article.  > Why was it listed in the search results?
>>> The three individual numbers 855, 470 and 8800 *do* appear in the page,
>> 
>> Huh?   I don't find any of those 3.   Can you quote whole sentences?
>
>Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even 
>"+18554708800". The third hit is BGE:
>
><https://www.bge.com/smart-energy/smart-grid-smart-meter/smart-meters>
>
>+++····················
>Please note: BGE is upgrading both electric and gas meters. If one of 
>your meters is outdoors and the other meter is indoors or otherwise 
>inaccessible, such as behind a gate, we may have upgraded your outdoor 
>meter, but we still need access to your additional meter. You will be 
>considered as opting out, and assessed the opt-out fees, unless we are 
>able to upgrade both meters. If one of your meters still needs to be 
>upgraded, please call BGE at 1-855-470-8800 to schedule an appointment.
>····················++-
>
>The number is legit.

Or possibly "was".  

The link refers to meter-upgrades "beginning in April 2012" and hints
at being mostly complete.  After 13 years, one would expect so...

A reverse lookup also reveals no current info; it would be strange for
a major utility company to be shy about its number usage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14349 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

"Carlos E.R." wrote:

> Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes?

Because I don't think the question was about finding the phone number, 
it was about why, having searched for the phone number did the results 
apparently not contain what had been searched for ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14356 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 27 Jul 2025 08:41:30 +0100, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>"Carlos E.R." wrote:
>
>> Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes?

I did that. 
>
>Because I don't think the question was about finding the phone number, 
>it was about why, having searched for the phone number did the results 
>apparently not contain what had been searched for ...

Yes, that's right.  BTW. I'm still going to reply to your previous post,
but that will take some time.  Getting rid of short tasks first. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14320 — Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

micky wrote:
> This is about Google search more than about Firefox, but I don't know
> what other active ng would be more appropriate than this one, And I
> would think you are all interested, even concerned about stuff like
> this. 

Nope, wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web