>That's been thoroughly explained over several threads here
No Marcia, not at all. It has not been “thoroughly explained”. The everflux effect is a well known effect we all know about. It means minor changes in the results, as a small real-time database gets in an out. That may slightly change the results, some sites go in and some sites go out, as a small percent of the result count changes.
That is not related with the present case.
We are following since 30/10/02 a keyword showing a correct 6.000.000 results only 25% of the time. Sometimes it has anything between 170.000 and 200.000 results, and 35% of the time it only list 142.000 sites, and the results are pure junk: the top 10 sites are sites without a domain name (only the ip), sites with "Fireworks Splice HTML" as the only text on it, and control panel sites whith a "Personalize Your Home Page" title on it.
> - more than once. There's constant movement, what with
>multiple data centers, fresh sites being added and/or
>passed over and/or changed daily and constantly
>updating indices. Throw in load sharing...
Sorry Marcia, but I think that is wishful thinking. 6.000.000 results to 140.000 results. In what is arguably one of the most competitive Spanish language keyword. Load balance? Small real-time database changes? A few fresh sites being added? Affecting only that very specific search term, no others? A 5.850.000 results difference? A sudden 4.200% increase on the indexed sites?
Sorry again Marcia, I don’t believe it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck. An Adwords type scheme competes with good, relevant, Search Engines results, as Googles´s founders recognised long time ago. The better the results, the lower the click-through and profits they get. How well is Google resolving that conflict? That is what we are questioning.
>>We really can't attribute evil-hearted motivations to companies or people based
>>on mere supposition.
We are not attributing “evil-hearted motivations”. Good old Big-Corp GREED is a much more likely “motivation”.
And, in any case, we are only looking for prove, or, to be correct, looking for more prove, no denouncing it (yet).