Can you please rephrase this sentence: "I wouldn't assume that it's an upper bound or even accurate within an order of magnitude.". English is not my native language.
Anyway, that must be really rough! approximation, according to my findings. I scanned 4 quadrants of the Earth: bbox=0,-90,180,0 ................. 1.315.249 photos bbox=0,0,180,90 ................. 2.509.190 photos bbox=-180,-90,0,0 .................. 1.215.214 photos bbox=-180,0,0,90 ................... 2.625.895 photos and the whole earth should have about 7.665.000 geotagged photos. But if we use the following: bbox=-180,-90,180,90 ........... we get only 2.484.491 photos. Is there anything I'm missing here? On 14 mar., 00:43, Jeff Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > Consider it a very rough approximation of how many possible results may be > in the geo-search index. I wouldn't assume that it's an upper bound or even > accurate within an order of magnitude. > > Cheers, > -Jeff > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Bosko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We get 2.973.630 photos if we check the "totalResults" attribute with > > this feed: > > >http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/api/all?kind=photo&max-results=... > > > I'm curious how exactly is this number? > > > Cheers, > > Bosko --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Picasa Web Albums API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Picasa-Data-API?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
