J. Allen wrote:
I wonder why it numbers them like that if they don't exist?
My guess is for optimisation. Imperfect hash tables suggest more results than there actually are. Although it is a quick and easy way of filtering the results down to a manageable size.
Each of these pages might be entries in a concordance sql database, but it doesn't need to look through all of those results unless it is necessary. Since most people are served by the first results page, preparing hundreds of results would be a waste of effort. It just prepares the first page and it is only when you visit the later pages that it forces google to sort through the rest. It is only then that it discovers the false positives from the hash function, and there are less results than initially suggested.
That's my guess anyway.
Ah, okay. I see what you're saying.
The results then are just incidental matches, which results in a lot of false positives until they're re-examined. Interesting.