Is it really that small, ya know VV

**Talamare** · 11-16-2006, 02:18 PM

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...y/16004858.htm

WTF!

internet is only 1% porn?!?!

no freakin way

**Dante Obscuri** · 11-16-2006, 02:24 PM

I hadn't expected that. I honestly thought there was more.

**Compjotr** · 11-16-2006, 02:31 PM

1%? NEVER!
It must be more like this

**Digital_Eon** · 11-16-2006, 02:37 PM

Only less than 0.001%? There must be tons of Internet sites if I can go on about... oh, 20 or so per day and none are porn. Although a few are Wiki articles. And I guess this site could count as some form of porn... or porn watchers, rather, judging by some members. =P Users, I mean. Er. Forum users. Like the people who post here.

**shautieh** · 11-16-2006, 02:40 PM

in your "cheese", there is no place left for "everything else" at all, so even with a "<" (which it was supposed to have instead of the ">") it wouldn't work...
some /b/ tard (or narutard) must have done that "_"

**Talamare** · 11-16-2006, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Digital_Eon

Only less than 0.001%? There must be tons of Internet sites if I can go on about... oh, 20 or so per day and none are porn. Although a few are Wiki articles. And I guess this site could count as some form of porn... or porn watchers, rather, judging by some members. =P Users, I mean. Er. Forum users. Like the people who post here.

that must be it

wikipedia made a website for every single thing imaginable and its drowning the porn

**98abaile** · 11-16-2006, 03:37 PM

The results were based on google searches. This means that they probably counted some sites multiple times (since one site can appear multiple times in the results), not forgetting that google will give results from all pages of a single site (i.e. if a site has ten pages , google will include all ten pages when it queries the search term), so if the internet had only two sites (one was porn the other wasn't; BTW, this is an example) and the non porn site had nine pages but the porn site only had one, results from google would indicate that the internet only consisted of 10% porn, when in reality the porn counts for 50% of sites (1/2).

Also, it depends on what the search terms were, and did the include every result from each search? The whole thing seems very unscientific to me.
I'm also gonna assume that google and MSN (being the leading search engines) have taken some steps to reducing the number of porn results in non porn related queries, 'cos just think of the scandal if some 3 year old googled "farmyard animals" and got a beastiality site in the results.

**shautieh** · 11-16-2006, 03:43 PM

yep, moreover porn sites generally need to log in in order to browse them, and google and other search engine can't browse these inner pages, making the results even more unreliable...