IF YOU HAVE RESULTS LIKE GIVEN PLEASE FURTHER THROUGH THESE MEANS, ALONG WITH HTTP: I may ask further questions! 

Evaluation of results is nothing but a process that may allow to draw first hypothesis. Numbers say nothing but the fact that something is repeated, though never, why. The detection of reason is only a human ability. Even if tags or categories do allow to order information, they do never allow to get the general logic governing the whole. See the following:

general lines about myself	3
alkistis protopsaltis,November 2006	1
schizoid intelligent	1
alkistis protopsaltis,2006	1
Burger King, israel, october 2006	1
Lou Andreas-Salome	1
christina onassis image	1
rotten.be recurrent use of a date does reach target three times. Does it mean that using dates will allow you to get the information you are searching for, always? If you look at the entries you see easily something: the first entry on Burger King Israel is probably a research made by someone on something specific that accidentally lands in my page. The second and third, Alkistis Protopsaltis November 1st and 2006, are made by someone who knows the page already and is just trying out how it appears. It is not a Greek one, who would never say November first, and Protopsaltis is little known outside Greece. Consequence: my little friend of the ‘last of Allah’ (sub company in Pakistan of the last of Alabama) is making tests. He hits the right point and this is not an accident, Pakistani are very good computer people because they have an ‘aleatory’ language. Google’s logic is certainly made on greatest extent through the use of Pakistani working at the system. The question is: why do you want to find what you already know? It is to find easily what you don’t know. Consequently the recurrence has no value for evaluation. But it gives interesting hints: probably a shop called ‘Second of November’ will very quickly find its way up the scale.  It shows that certainly there are three or four people in Israel who have had a look at the page, 6 or 7 in Pakistan, a few in the US and little more. The reasons why these people may have been attracted are though varying (probably a coincidence in Pakistan through my aunt), a tag said Israel attracts someone there, and surprisingly many people are interested in Athina Onassis without it being easy to understand why they do all land in my page while there are hundreds of articles published on her. As it is a research you can’t say it is someone said to someone that … Conclusion: people who have already an interest around my page (Israel, Pakistan, US), do see Google choose ’sympathetic’ fields for the transmission of information. Now, this is a hypothesis. If WordPress has the means to know where the computers are located that made the request, you verify hypothesis, which would mean that you have strong reasons to think that this is part of the governing logic (you need quite a lot of information in order to establish validity). We will kindly request WordPress’ colaboration for scientifical purposes!