Google "Taylor Hicks": 1,220,000 results

Google "Katharine McPhee":  1,520,000 results

Yay Katharine!

Ok, coffee break over, back to work.

I noticed that too.
Does anyone besides me sometimes punch in "Katharine McPhee"
at both Yahoo and google sites at random, just to help boost her buzz numbers?

Or is that just me?

Those of us who are aware that the numbers are counted and are significant, always use these search engines even though we don't really have to.

Not to be a downer, but the # of results from Google can vary at different times depending on where you live and what updates are going on at Google at the time. You can go to GoogleFight.com and get a more consistent (I guess that's the right term) result. Taylor does beat Kat in that. The odd thing to me is that there are more results for KathErine McPhee than KathArine McPhee. When you combine both terms Kat's results are around 2.74 million, Taylor's are around 3.6 million.

Aha!

If you don't put them in quotes, you are correct because it is returning how many links there are for each word seperately. Without quotes means "any of the words", with quotes means "exact phrase".  If you put them in quotes (which is what I was doing):

"katharine mcphee" = 1,170,000
"taylor hicks" = 1,050,000

So, my point stands! There are more links out there about Katharine than Taylor.

Plus, "katherine mcphee" gets another 163,000 from a brief look most of those are about our K too.

Yay Katharine!

p.s. There are more results for KathErine McPhee than KathArine McPhee beacuse KathErine is a lot more common than KathArine.

 

Ooooh!!!! I do as well!!!

Wow! I didn't catch that phee.. Bcoz everytime i google it, taylor and soul patrol beat Kat and kat pack.. So what must i do to see that?

Google is beginning to own the world, so if Kat can win the Google Wars...she'll also own the world. Maybe a fanfic about Kat fighting in the Google War would be an interesting idea.

Thanks, Simon, for the news on that. I wondered about where she stood on Google. We always hear about AOL and Lycos--but never where she stood on Google. She'll probably be a Top Five search on Google when the album comes out--and that means more lurkers here. Did you notice that the 'people online' number went up to the 300-500 number range again? It hasn't been near there since the time Eonline had that article about Chad and KMF. The reason is that KMF is one of the first listed sites for Kat when you type in 'Katharine McPhee' on Google.

I occasionally type in Kat's name in Google's Image search. That's just to see if they've added any new pics. Oddly, they haven't added many for a while. You'd think all these pics from various appearances (or even tour pics) would show up in an Image search at Google. Instead, they just have mostly pics from the time of 'AI.' That makes trying to find random and recent photos of her fairly tough through a search engine. Only the photo gallery linked from here is the true source for untagged photos you can't get anywhere else.

Maybe if I put her name in quotes, it'd give more a thorough search. I always find that strange to do that when typing in a name--but that's the suggestion they give you.

Be thankful Kat has a unique name that only calls up images about her. A Google Image search for Meatloaf calls up every other picture of a real plate of meatloaf next to pics of his own mug.

With regards to Google, if you take only the "relevant results," this is how the current scores pan out:

"taylor hicks" - 812
"kathArine mcphee" - 758
"kathErine mcphee" - 744

Given that there are pages that might feature both spellings of Kat's name, I don't think adding up Kat's numbers would result in a fair comparison.

Another thing we need to consider. I noticed a lot of Kat's hits were of an "adult" nature. It's obvious her "equipment" (trying to tread lightly here) is giving her a significant advantage over ol' Taytay in the Google "wars."

So, while Google numbers might be an indicator of popularity, it's hardly a perfect one (IMO).

To Greg (Re. Google pic search):

I currently maintain (and designed <- shameless plug  ) the "official" website of our diocese. I check the hit stats now and then... There you see (among other things) the domain names of those who access the site the most, and near the top of that list you see search engine bots (a.k.a. spiders, a.k.a. crawlers).

From those stats I can tell you that Google's bots seem awfully lazy compared to those of MSN, for example (MSN's bots "visit" the site about 10 times more often than Google's). That's why many of Google's results take some time to become up to date. (It's also why I chose MSN over Google as the site's search engine.)

Also, some pic site owners deliberately block search engine robots from indexing the folders in which pics are stored. And other pic pages are dynamically generated, or show up only in JavaScript pop-ups. Such pics rarely, if ever, show up in pic searches (Google or otherwise).

wow..well, i guess this is still a good thing, not much info on kat, everything in suspense, makes kat phans smarter!!