# How to identify the lowest number NOT found on Google.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [September 16, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699 "2004-09-16T15:18:33Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Drew\_Blade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drew_Blade)
#### Post date: [September 16, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/1 "2004-09-16T15:18:33Z")
Over in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275678) we have had a little fun looking for the lowest number NOT found on Google. We haven’t found a new low now for a couple days, but that doesn’t mean we have reached the bottom. If anyone else wants to join the search, please do.
But this thread is about how best to go about identifying the absolutely truly lowest number that returns zero/no hits (do read the “rules” about what is allowed 🙂 ). Are there algorithms? Strategies? Tricks for more effective searches? One of the sites in the other thread’s OP mentions using a “script” of some sort to speed things up; anyone know how to write one?
Anyway, anyone have any ideas?
---
### Author:  [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)
#### Post date: [September 16, 2004, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/2 "2004-09-16T23:56:40Z")
Here was my first attempt: [bonequest](http://www.area.com/ntucker/test/googlenumbers.html) (probably only works in IE, by the way)
This has the downside that cross-frame scripting cannot access the content in frames from other domains to see if they contain a particular string (e.g. “did not match any documents”), so you’re required to sit there and watch it. Also, it doesn’t know when the page has fully loaded, so you have to tune the amount of time between queries so you can be sure to see the results.
The other approach I used was to write a unix shell script. Here is the code:
```auto
#!/bin/sh
num=10000000
if ["$1" != ""]
then
num=$1
fi
echo starting at $num
while true
do
url='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q='$num
lynx -source $url > /tmp/googlenumberstmp
grep 'did not match any documents' /tmp/googlenumberstmp > /dev/null
if ["$?" == "0"]
then
echo nothing found: $num
exit 1;
else
echo checked: $num
fi
num=$((num + 1))
done
```
You specify the number to start at and it increases the number until it finds one that returns no results. With my connection, it’s testing about two numbers per second, and I started it at 10,000,000. So I’ll let you know when it hits. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)
#### Post date: [September 16, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/3 "2004-09-16T23:59:21Z")
Start with a number that’s not found on Google, and count down.
---
### Author:  [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/4 "2004-09-17T00:08:14Z")
Seems more definitive to start at the bottom and count up…
---
### Author:  [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/5 "2004-09-17T00:09:16Z")
> [@ntucker](#):
>
> With my connection, it’s testing about two numbers per second, and I started it at 10,000,000. So I’ll let you know when it hits. 🙂
I think you may find one in the 11,04w,xyz range 😉
---
### Author:  [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/6 "2004-09-17T00:13:12Z")
> [@ntucker](#):
>
> Seems more definitive to start at the bottom and count up…
It’s not more definitive, but it would be faster.
---
### Author:  [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/7 "2004-09-17T00:27:24Z")
Counting down from a known number is only definitive if you count all the way down, in which case I don’t see how it could possibly be considered a better method in any way. You’re more likely to get “hits” sooner, I’d guess, but you can’t know whether these are the definitive hits until you get all the way through. Counting up, you know as soon as you hit the number.
---
### Author:  [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2004, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/8 "2004-09-17T00:42:10Z")
> [@ntucker](#):
>
> Counting down from a known number is only definitive if you count all the way down, in which case I don’t see how it could possibly be considered a better method in any way. You’re more likely to get “hits” sooner, I’d guess, but you can’t know whether these are the definitive hits until you get all the way through. Counting up, you know as soon as you hit the number.
Anything that’s guaranteed to return the correct answer is definitive. I never said “stop as soon as you get a hit”.
---
### Author:  [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2004, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/9 "2004-09-17T00:51:43Z")
[Google’s advanced search page](http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en) allows you to search for pages containing numbers within a given range. For example, you can ask it to return all pages which contain any number between 5 and 15. I think that you might be able to use this somehow to at least narrow down your search.
---
### Author:  [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2004, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/10 "2004-09-17T01:01:39Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#):
>
> Anything that’s guaranteed to return the correct answer is definitive. I never said “stop as soon as you get a hit”.
Ok, so what’s your rationale for saying I should start with a known hit and count down?
---
### Author:  [@FilmGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FilmGeek)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/11 "2004-09-17T01:11:47Z")
> [@Colophon](#):
>
> I think you may find one in the 11,04w,xyz range 😉
That’s pronounced eleventywizziwig, right? 😃
---
### Author:  [@Drew\_Blade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drew_Blade)
#### Post date: [September 16, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/12 "2004-09-16T21:29:04Z")
> [@ntucker](#):
>
> Here was my first attempt: [bonequest](http://www.area.com/ntucker/test/googlenumbers.html) (probably only works in IE, by the way)
>
> This has the downside that cross-frame scripting cannot access the content in frames from other domains to see if they contain a particular string (e.g. “did not match any documents”), so you’re required to sit there and watch it. Also, it doesn’t know when the page has fully loaded, so you have to tune the amount of time between queries so you can be sure to see the results.
>
> The other approach I used was to write a unix shell script. Here is the code:
>
> ```auto
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> num=10000000
> if ["$1" != ""]
> then
> num=$1
> fi
>
> echo starting at $num
>
> while true
> do
> url='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q='$num
> lynx -source $url > /tmp/googlenumberstmp
>
> grep 'did not match any documents' /tmp/googlenumberstmp > /dev/null
> if ["$?" == "0"]
> then
> echo nothing found: $num
> exit 1;
> else
> echo checked: $num
> fi
> num=$((num + 1))
> done
>
> ```
>
> You specify the number to start at and it increases the number until it finds one that returns no results. With my connection, it’s testing about two numbers per second, and I started it at 10,000,000. So I’ll let you know when it hits. 🙂
**ntucker** , fabulous work!
**davidm** , I have tried the Google number range thing but I couldn’t figure out how to make it help any. Do you have any ideas I can try?
**Colophon** , can you clue me in on the significance of 11,04w,xyz? I don’t want to be the last one to know. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Drew\_Blade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drew_Blade)
#### Post date: [September 16, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/13 "2004-09-16T21:33:05Z")
I’d appreciate it if everyone would read post # 2. My keybord must have misfired; don’t ask me how!
---
### Author:  [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2004, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/14 "2004-09-18T06:53:33Z")
> [@Colophon](#):
>
> I think you may find one in the 11,04w,xyz range 😉
Well, at 2pm yesterday, there were no hits for 11046726 (I still have the results page saved), but now there are. It’s hard to “win” at a game with such fleeting results…
---
### Author:  [@Drew\_Blade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drew_Blade)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/15 "2004-09-18T21:36:30Z")
> [@ntucker](#):
>
> Well, at 2pm yesterday, there were no hits for 11046726 (I still have the results page saved), but now there are. It’s hard to “win” at a game with such fleeting results…
**ntucker** , were you counting up or down from any particular number when you found that one?
And I still don’t understand the significance of 11,04w,xyz. Anyone?
---
### Author:  [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/16 "2004-09-18T23:29:29Z")
I started a second copy of my script at 11040000 to reach that, specifically because of **Colophon’s** comment.
And for what it’s worth, my script has been running for almost 48 hours now after starting at 10,000,000, and it still hasn’t gotten a hit. It’s up to 10326600 now, which makes my estimate of “two per second” pretty darn close for a guess (it’s about 1.89 per second). 🙂
---
### Author:  [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2004, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/17 "2004-09-18T23:36:27Z")
…which also means that it would take me 68 days to get up to the 1104xxxx range if I started at 0. It takes about 6 days to do a million queries.
---
### Author:  [@Drew\_Blade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drew_Blade)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2004, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/18 "2004-09-30T17:34:44Z")
> [@ntucker](#):
>
> I started a second copy of my script at 11040000 to reach that, specifically because of **Colophon’s** comment.
>
> And for what it’s worth, my script has been running for almost 48 hours now after starting at 10,000,000, and it still hasn’t gotten a hit. It’s up to 10326600 now, which makes my estimate of “two per second” pretty darn close for a guess (it’s about 1.89 per second). 🙂
**ntucker** , did you ever find anything?
Not that I expect you to be looking the rest of your life, or anything 🙂 .
---
### Author:  [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/19 "2004-09-30T17:59:43Z")
> [@ntucker](#):
>
> Well, at 2pm yesterday, there were no hits for 11046726 (I still have the results page saved), but now there are. It’s hard to “win” at a game with such fleeting results…
I have a hit for 11046726!
It’s on a message board run by a newspaper… 😕
---
### Author:  [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699/20 "2004-09-30T18:00:49Z")
> [@glee](#):
>
> I have a hit for 11046726!
>
> It’s on a message board run by a newspaper… 😕
And now I have **another** hit for this random number.
What is going on? :eek:
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-identify-the-lowest-number-not-found-on-google/264699.md?page=2)