Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #27566 > unrolled thread

Safari - Google search deal expires soon. New default for Safari ...

Started by	Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
First post	2015-02-01 10:15 -0500
Last post	2015-02-06 05:57 +1100
Articles	20 on this page of 84 — 21 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →

#27667

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2015-02-04 18:15 +1100
Message-ID	<cjdv9kFoj6qU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27663

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote

>>>>> But Google is *not* Apple's main competitor. In fact, there are very 
>>>>> few
>>>>> areas in which Apple and Google compete. Let's see.. free email 
>>>>> services
>>>>> (free from both) and free contact/calendar/etc syncing (free from 
>>>>> both).

>>>>> Where do they compete?

>>>> In the mobile OS arena.

>>> actually they don't.

>>> google gives away android (and licenses it to
>>> some manufacturers). apple doesn't give away ios

Corse it does, you don't pay for it.
Apple gives away Numbers and Pages too.

And OS-X as well.

>>> google makes the majority of its revenue from advertising.
>>> apple makes the majority of its revenue from iphone sales.

>> Android is one of Google's ways to increase its advertising revenues.
>> Therefore, it is in competition with iOS.

> nope.

Yep.

> apple doesn't make money on advertising,

BULLSHIT.

> other than a small amount from iads.

> two totally different business models.

Irrelevant to whether apple competes with google
in the mobile OS arena, and with google in the phone,
tablet and camera arenas, and with google with their
browser, and with google with their 'stores' etc etc etc.

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

#27646

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2015-02-04 06:20 +1100
Message-ID	<cjcld8FelguU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27634

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote

>>> But Google is *not* Apple's main competitor. In fact, there are very few
>>> areas in which Apple and Google compete. Let's see.. free email services
>>> (free from both) and free contact/calendar/etc syncing (free from both).

>>> Where do they compete?

>> In the mobile OS arena.

> actually they don't.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Of course they do.

> google gives away android (and licenses it to some manufacturers).
> apple doesn't give away ios

Irrelevant to whether they do in fact compete in the mobile OS arena.

> google makes the majority of its revenue from advertising.
> apple makes the majority of its revenue from iphone sales.

Irrelevant to whether they do in fact compete in the mobile OS arena.

> google does sell nexus phones,

So they do in fact compete with phone and tablets and cameras.

> but they're not big sellers

All that means is that apple does better in that particular market.

> and heavily subsidized and sold at or below cost.

Bullshit.

> google makes money from advertising revenue
> from those who buy the nexus phones.

Google makes money from advertising revenue
from those who buy any android phones and
tablets and from many who buy iphones and
ipads and ipods too.

> apple's competitor in the mobile space is samsung.

Apple's competitors in the mobile space is everyone
who makes more than just low end phones and tablets.

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

#27651

From	Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Date	2015-02-04 00:43 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnmd2qqp.2491.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#27629

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was all, like:
> In article <slrnmd00c0.1sbd.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> But Google is *not* Apple's main competitor. In fact, there are very few
>> areas in which Apple and Google compete. Let's see.. free email services
>> (free from both) and free contact/calendar/etc syncing (free from both).
>> 
>> Where do they compete?

> In the mobile OS arena.

That's an imaginary competition at this point. Google makes more money
from iOS than it makes from Android.


-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com

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

#27652

From	"john james" <jj9801@nospam.com>
Date	2015-02-04 12:38 +1100
Message-ID	<cjdbioFk9prU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27651


"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
news:slrnmd2qqp.2491.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org...
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 
> was all, like:
>> In article <slrnmd00c0.1sbd.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>> But Google is *not* Apple's main competitor. In fact, there are very few
>>> areas in which Apple and Google compete. Let's see.. free email services
>>> (free from both) and free contact/calendar/etc syncing (free from both).
>>>
>>> Where do they compete?
>
>> In the mobile OS arena.
>
> That's an imaginary competition at this point.

The competition in the mobile OS arena is real.

> Google makes more money from iOS than it makes from Android.

Irrelevant to whether they compete in the mobile OS arena.

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

#27654

From	Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Date	2015-02-04 01:57 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnmd2v4u.2fk5.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#27652

Okay, so one time? In band camp? john james <jj9801@nospam.com> was all, like:


> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
> news:slrnmd2qqp.2491.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org...
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 
>> was all, like:
>>> In article <slrnmd00c0.1sbd.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
>>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>>> But Google is *not* Apple's main competitor. In fact, there are very few
>>>> areas in which Apple and Google compete. Let's see.. free email services
>>>> (free from both) and free contact/calendar/etc syncing (free from both).
>>>>
>>>> Where do they compete?
>>
>>> In the mobile OS arena.
>>
>> That's an imaginary competition at this point.

> The competition in the mobile OS arena is real.

Not in any real sense it's not.

>> Google makes more money from iOS than it makes from Android.

> Irrelevant to whether they compete in the mobile OS arena. 

Of course it's relevant. What do you think "competition" means?



-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com

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

#27655

From	"john james" <jj9801@nospam.com>
Date	2015-02-04 13:05 +1100
Message-ID	<cjdd4kFkkf3U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27654


"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
news:slrnmd2v4u.2fk5.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org...
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? john james <jj9801@nospam.com> was all, 
> like:
>
>
>> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
>> news:slrnmd2qqp.2491.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org...
>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner 
>>> <michelle@michelle.org>
>>> was all, like:
>>>> In article <slrnmd00c0.1sbd.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
>>>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But Google is *not* Apple's main competitor. In fact, there are very 
>>>>> few
>>>>> areas in which Apple and Google compete. Let's see.. free email 
>>>>> services
>>>>> (free from both) and free contact/calendar/etc syncing (free from 
>>>>> both).
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do they compete?
>>>
>>>> In the mobile OS arena.
>>>
>>> That's an imaginary competition at this point.
>
>> The competition in the mobile OS arena is real.
>
> Not in any real sense it's not.
>
>>> Google makes more money from iOS than it makes from Android.
>
>> Irrelevant to whether they compete in the mobile OS arena.
>
> Of course it's relevant. What do you think "competition" means?

Operations don’t only compete in the arena that
they make the most money in.

Google competes with Apple in the browser, phone,
tablet and camera arenas too, even tho it doesn’t
make as much money as Apple does in the phone,
tablet and camera arenas and makes much more
money than Apple does in the browser arena. It
also competes with Apple and in the 'store' arena.

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

#27659

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2015-02-04 00:48 -0500
Message-ID	<040220150048053290%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#27651

In article <slrnmd2qqp.2491.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> But Google is *not* Apple's main competitor. In fact, there are very few
> >> areas in which Apple and Google compete. Let's see.. free email services
> >> (free from both) and free contact/calendar/etc syncing (free from both).
> >> 
> >> Where do they compete?
> 
> > In the mobile OS arena.
> 
> That's an imaginary competition at this point. Google makes more money
> from iOS than it makes from Android.

even more amusing is that microsoft makes more from android than it
does from windows phone via all its licensees.

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

#27670

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2015-02-04 12:47 +0000
Message-ID	<cjeimsFth45U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27659

On 2015-02-04, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnmd2qqp.2491.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
><g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> >> But Google is *not* Apple's main competitor. In fact, there are very few
>> >> areas in which Apple and Google compete. Let's see.. free email services
>> >> (free from both) and free contact/calendar/etc syncing (free from both).
>> >> 
>> >> Where do they compete?
>> 
>> > In the mobile OS arena.
>> 
>> That's an imaginary competition at this point. Google makes more money
>> from iOS than it makes from Android.
>
> even more amusing is that microsoft makes more from android than it
> does from windows phone via all its licensees.

"Competition" is good. : D

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#27642

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2015-02-03 17:07 +0000
Message-ID	<cjcdhnFbtg7U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27579

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.apps.]
On 2015-02-02, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But google is apple's main competitor so its more complicated than that. 

Highlighting for Michelle's benefit...

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#27644

From	Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org>
Date	2015-02-03 10:59 -0700
Message-ID	<030220151059387472%michelle@michelle.org>
In reply to	#27642

In article <cjcdhnFbtg7U2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.apps.]
> On 2015-02-02, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > But google is apple's main competitor so its more complicated than that. 
> 
> Highlighting for Michelle's benefit...

I understand that; I was merely, as I wrote in my previous message,
that I didn't write that.

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

#27650

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2015-02-04 06:39 +1100
Message-ID	<cjcmgjFf04dU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27642


"Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote in message 
news:cjcdhnFbtg7U2@mid.individual.net...
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.apps.]

reversed

> On 2015-02-02, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But google is apple's main competitor so its more complicated than that.
>
> Highlighting for Michelle's benefit...

Pity you deleted the context.

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

#27609

From	Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
Date	2015-02-02 16:22 -0500
Message-ID	<OpOdnZ6uxr01d1LJnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#27578

On 2015.02.01 22:56 , DevilsPGD wrote:
> In the last episode of <201502011528166493-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr
> <xxx@yyy.zzz> said:
>
>> On 2015-02-01 19:01:05 +0000, Invid Fan said:
>>
>>> In article <NLOdnQCjQLGM3lPJnZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently the Apple/Google deal on default search for Safari (OS X and
>>>> iOS) will end soon and Yahoo and MS are vying to be the new default
>>>> search engine.
>>>>
>>> It would be funny if Apple went with Duck Duck Go, just to piss the
>>> others off (It's already one of the options)
>>
>> Why would they set ANY search engine as the default.
>
> Business and money. From a business perspective, Apple's default
> settings control a huge segment of the market, if they change their
> default from Google to something else, it will make a noticeable dent on
> the bottom line of both Google and the gaining search engine.
>
> If one particular search engine is willing to pay more than another to
> have their bottom line go up, well, that works for Apple.

A scenario that Google may prefer is to be de-defaulted and have no 
agreement with Apple, but at the same time rely on the general tendency 
of many users to select Google as their default search engine.  Google 
wins with less ad-click share to Apple.  Apple lose.

-- 
"Your net worth to the world is usually
  determined by what remains after your
  bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
                                   Benjamin Franklin

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

#27645

From	bne9988 <bne9988@gmail.com>
Date	2015-02-03 20:11 +0100
Message-ID	<54d11d71$0$12908$b1db1813$a307dbb3@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#27568

On 2015-02-01 19:01:05 +0000, Invid Fan said:

> In article <NLOdnQCjQLGM3lPJnZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Apparently the Apple/Google deal on default search for Safari (OS X and
>> iOS) will end soon and Yahoo and MS are vying to be the new default
>> search engine.
>> 
> It would be funny if Apple went with Duck Duck Go, just to piss the
> others off (It's already one of the options)

That would be fantastic. Not only would it piss off the others, but it 
would also make a statement that Apple is a company that supports 
privacy... at least it would seem like they do.

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

#27660

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2015-02-04 00:48 -0500
Message-ID	<040220150048063330%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#27645

In article <54d11d71$0$12908$b1db1813$a307dbb3@news.astraweb.com>,
bne9988 <bne9988@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It would be funny if Apple went with Duck Duck Go, just to piss the
> > others off (It's already one of the options)
> 
> That would be fantastic. Not only would it piss off the others, but it 
> would also make a statement that Apple is a company that supports 
> privacy... at least it would seem like they do.

apple has said they support privacy on many occasions.

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

#27665

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2015-02-04 17:54 +1100
Message-ID	<cjdu29Fo9urU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27660

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
> bne9988 <bne9988@gmail.com> wrote

>>> It would be funny if Apple went with Duck Duck Go, 
>>> just to piss the others off (It's already one of the options)
 
>> That would be fantastic. Not only would it piss off the others, 
>> but it would also make a statement that Apple is a company 
>> that supports privacy... at least it would seem like they do.
 
> apple has said they support privacy on many occasions.

But don't actually do anything about that with search engines.

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

#27671

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2015-02-04 12:49 +0000
Message-ID	<cjeipuFth45U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27660

On 2015-02-04, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <54d11d71$0$12908$b1db1813$a307dbb3@news.astraweb.com>,
> bne9988 <bne9988@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > It would be funny if Apple went with Duck Duck Go, just to piss the
>> > others off (It's already one of the options)
>> 
>> That would be fantastic. Not only would it piss off the others, but it 
>> would also make a statement that Apple is a company that supports 
>> privacy... at least it would seem like they do.
>
> apple has said they support privacy on many occasions.

Apple has also arguably done more to protect their customer's privacy
than other firms. No corporation is to be trusted completely; but some
certainly are more trustworthy than others.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#27678

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2015-02-05 06:08 +1100
Message-ID	<cjf931F520mU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27671

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote 
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> bne9988 <bne9988@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> It would be funny if Apple went with Duck Duck Go, just 
>>>> to piss the others off (It's already one of the options)
 
>>> That would be fantastic. Not only would it piss off the others, 
>>> but it would also make a statement that Apple is a company 
>>> that supports privacy... at least it would seem like they do.

>> apple has said they support privacy on many occasions.
 
> Apple has also arguably done more to protect 
> their customer's privacy than other firms. 

Not that Duck Duck Go. 

> No corporation is to be trusted completely; but 
> some certainly are more trustworthy than others.

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

#27673

From	Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
Date	2015-02-04 08:37 -0500
Message-ID	<yMOdnSrQAcwqvU_JnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#27645

On 2015.02.03 14:11 , bne9988 wrote:
> On 2015-02-01 19:01:05 +0000, Invid Fan said:
>
>> In article <NLOdnQCjQLGM3lPJnZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently the Apple/Google deal on default search for Safari (OS X and
>>> iOS) will end soon and Yahoo and MS are vying to be the new default
>>> search engine.
>>>
>> It would be funny if Apple went with Duck Duck Go, just to piss the
>> others off (It's already one of the options)
>
> That would be fantastic. Not only would it piss off the others, but it
> would also make a statement that Apple is a company that supports
> privacy... at least it would seem like they do.

You could always wrap your Google (or other) searches via Tor browser 
making you pretty much untrackable.  I tried it recently and its speed 
(I mean network side) is improving to the point of not being a drag anymore.

As to best search engine we assume that Google is the best, or maybe 
Bing is.  Or perhaps Yahoo (which uses Bing).

How does one 'certify' (or otherwise measure) the completeness of a 
search site's content library? It's crawler's abilities?  Bias?  (Google).

Likewise the efficiency, completeness, accuracy and context-mindfullness 
of its search engines and results?

-- 
"Your net worth to the world is usually
  determined by what remains after your
  bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
                                   Benjamin Franklin

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

#27679

From	"john james" <jj9801@nospam.com>
Date	2015-02-05 06:16 +1100
Message-ID	<cjf9hhF55rrU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#27673


"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message 
news:yMOdnSrQAcwqvU_JnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 2015.02.03 14:11 , bne9988 wrote:
>> On 2015-02-01 19:01:05 +0000, Invid Fan said:
>>
>>> In article <NLOdnQCjQLGM3lPJnZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently the Apple/Google deal on default search for Safari (OS X and
>>>> iOS) will end soon and Yahoo and MS are vying to be the new default
>>>> search engine.
>>>>
>>> It would be funny if Apple went with Duck Duck Go, just to piss the
>>> others off (It's already one of the options)
>>
>> That would be fantastic. Not only would it piss off the others, but it
>> would also make a statement that Apple is a company that supports
>> privacy... at least it would seem like they do.
>
> You could always wrap your Google (or other) searches via Tor browser 
> making you pretty much untrackable.  I tried it recently and its speed (I 
> mean network side) is improving to the point of not being a drag anymore.
>
> As to best search engine we assume that Google is the best, or maybe Bing 
> is.  Or perhaps Yahoo (which uses Bing).
>
> How does one 'certify' (or otherwise measure) the completeness of a search 
> site's content library?

That isn't necessarily what most want from a search engine,
for many it’s getting the hits sorted so the one they want is
on the first page and one which works out what you meant
rather than what you actually typed, particularly with typos
and alternate keywords that are more commonly used.

> It's crawler's abilities?  Bias?  (Google).

> Likewise the efficiency, completeness, accuracy and context-mindfullness 
> of its search engines and results?

That's closer to what most want from a search engine but also
includes what I listed as well.

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

#27687

From	Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Date	2015-02-05 08:52 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnmd6bqn.2r4.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#27679

Okay, so one time? In band camp? john james <jj9801@nospam.com> was all, like:


> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message 
> news:yMOdnSrQAcwqvU_JnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 2015.02.03 14:11 , bne9988 wrote:
>>> On 2015-02-01 19:01:05 +0000, Invid Fan said:
>>>
>>>> In article <NLOdnQCjQLGM3lPJnZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apparently the Apple/Google deal on default search for Safari (OS X and
>>>>> iOS) will end soon and Yahoo and MS are vying to be the new default
>>>>> search engine.
>>>>>
>>>> It would be funny if Apple went with Duck Duck Go, just to piss the
>>>> others off (It's already one of the options)
>>>
>>> That would be fantastic. Not only would it piss off the others, but it
>>> would also make a statement that Apple is a company that supports
>>> privacy... at least it would seem like they do.
>>
>> You could always wrap your Google (or other) searches via Tor browser 
>> making you pretty much untrackable.  I tried it recently and its speed (I 
>> mean network side) is improving to the point of not being a drag anymore.
>>
>> As to best search engine we assume that Google is the best, or maybe Bing 
>> is.  Or perhaps Yahoo (which uses Bing).
>>
>> How does one 'certify' (or otherwise measure) the completeness of a search 
>> site's content library?

> That isn't necessarily what most want from a search engine,
> for many it’s getting the hits sorted so the one they want is
> on the first page and one which works out what you meant
> rather than what you actually typed, particularly with typos
> and alternate keywords that are more commonly used.

I read somewhere that more than 80% of google searches either resulted
in a click on one of the first three results, an ad, or no click at all.
Less than 5% ever resulted in loading the second page of results.

Can't find the source now, so maybe the numbers are off. But I bet not.
I've certainly told many people that there are multiple pages to the
search results, to their surprise.

That said, going to page 10 of results on Google can be amusing.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →

csiph-web

Safari - Google search deal expires soon. New default for Safari ...

Contents

#27667

#27646

#27651

#27652

#27654

#27655

#27659

#27670

#27642

#27644

#27650

#27609

#27645

#27660

#27665

#27671

#27678

#27673

#27679

#27687