Evil trend report

[Che M]

On Sep 6, 8:50 am, Grant Edwards <gra... at visi.com> wrote:
> On 2009-09-06, John Nagle <na... at animats.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bing
> >    A     3    2.4%  ()
> >    A     1    0.8%  (non_commercial)
> >    Q    50   40.0%  ()
> >    Q    15   12.0%  (no_location)
> >    U     5    4.0%  (no_website)
> >    U    33   26.4%  (non_commercial)
> >    X     1    0.8%  (negative_info)
> >    X    17   13.6%  (no_location)
>
> > Google
> >    A     1    0.8%  ()
> >    A     4    3.3%  (non_commercial)
> >    Q    46   38.3%  ()
> >    Q    20   16.7%  (no_location)
> >    Q     1    0.8%  (non_commercial)
> >    U     4    3.3%  (no_website)
> >    U    28   23.3%  (non_commercial)
> >    X    16   13.3%  (no_location)
> > Test complete: Evil trend report
>
> I've absolutely no clue what those tables are supposed to
> represent (well, I do know what Bing and Google are, but beyond
> that...).

I think it's pretty obvious, Grant.  Clearly, for the second of
the two U's, Bing has a 33, while Google only has a 28.  I mean,
Google doesn't even HAVE a 2nd X (the so-called "negative_info"
that we've all heard about).  I haven't seen numbers and letters
like this in a long time, let me tell you.

CM