When titling the previous post, I wasn’t sure how many ‘m’s to include. I wanted a feeling of trailing off, but didn’t want to overdo it - “what’s a usual sort of number to use in this scenario?” I thought to myself. Being a nerd geek cyberdude, I consulted Google, and immediately lost my original trail of thought when I discovered that the number of results for the regular expression “Hm*” was inversely proportional to the number of ‘m’s chosen. For non computer scientists/turing machine enthusuasts, this means that every time you add an ‘m’, the number of search results drops - quite sharply, in fact. Having made this obscure and asinine discovery, I tried to think of a way of making it blogworthy…
The green line is the actual values, and the orange one is an exponential regression, apparently (Anyone who correctly identifies where I’ve used the three colours here before gets a million points). I had to wrestle with OpenOffice furiously to make the graph - someone with actual skills probably could have put it together in under a minute, but I’ve probably created about 3 files in 2 years of having OOo so it took me slightly longer than that. As in it’s now 4am. Oh dear.
Another thing I noticed was that even though the amount of ‘m’s was decreasing, Google would always find something no matter how many I added in. After a while I was obsessed, I had to find a “Hmm…” no one had typed before! Eventually I did - I had to make the link tiny so it wouldn’t break wordpress:
At least next time they crawl my blog, I’ll be able to say I’m number 1 on Google for something.
Until Donal uses cunning SEO techniques to overthrow me.
Since we’re on the topic of pseudo-maths and blog matters, here’s a graph I drew (in mspaint) of how my time was spent over the Christmas break:
Blogging is included in the “Other” section, along with eating and watching Arrested Development - I hope this helps you understand why updates were sparse…
Recent Comments