Ron, I appreciate your attempt to educate me in the sophisticated methods of data collection you point out. I see that it provides a shorter list of articles to look through.
But I think it missed, for example, this article, which not only has interesting things to say on its own, but also has an interesting list of secondary sources that are worth following up for their own sakes. Some of these articles may be familiar to you from prior research and general reading in the area. I will list them after I give the main reference.
135. Nancy Youssef, "U.S. attacks, not insurgents, blamed for most Iraqi deaths,” Miami Herald, September 25 2004. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925- 02.htm
136. Les Roberts et al., "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey,” The Lancet, Vol 364, November 20 2004.
137. Owen Bennett-Jones, "Iraq deaths survey was robust,” BBC World Service, March 26 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm
138. Nicolas J. S. Davies, "Burying the Lancet report,” Z Magazine, February 2006.
140. "BBC obtains Iraq casualty figures,” BBC News, January 28 2005. Original report at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7906.htm
141. "Iraqi civilian casualties,” United Press International, July 12 2005. http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2005/07/12/iraqi_civilian_casualties/ 2280/
142. Gilbert Burnham et al., "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a crosssectional cluster sample survey,” The Lancet, October 11 2006.
143. Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group, "Violence-related mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 358: 484-493, January 31 2008.
While there are considerably more people interested in your edited version of Fake MOON LANDINGS (48,000) than in your edited version of “U.S. Genocide in Iraq” (about 10,500), the straight out unedited statement versions of these two questions are considerably different. (28 Million for U.S. Genocide in Iraq is what I get this time as against 185 thousand on the fake moon landings.)
Does this mean anything?
Darn if I know. But I find that I’ve had a more difficult time getting at some of the more interesting and better researched data IN THIS CASE by doing it your way. I’ll need to have to try it out a lot more to find out what sort of data gets sorted out by refining my search the way you suggest. It might prove to be very useful and productive in another sort of search.
Perhaps if you have a search that is far longer than a hundred pages, your method might do a better job for sorting out data at the right level of abstraction, while a search that is far shorter might not work as well, or vice versa. My mathematical reasoning is not very good, so I couldn’t tell you. Perhaps it’s better for me to look at more of this sort of raw data? Though raw statistical data wouldn’t be very helpful at all.