A meal finder counts records it can search, not every order a restaurant could prepare. The result count is useful when its scope is clear. “No matches” in a tracked dataset does not prove that no suitable meal exists anywhere on the current menu.
Four counts can differ
The tracked count describes records in the dataset. The eligible count may exclude entries missing essential filter data. The matching count applies your active choices. The displayed count may show only the first page or batch. A “show more” action should change the display without inventing additional matches.
A simple example
Imagine a dataset of 20 records, two lacking the necessary protein data. Eighteen are eligible for a supported protein search. Five satisfy your active limits, but the first display shows three. The useful label is “5 matches” with three currently visible—not “20 meals for you.”
Coverage limits deserve a real next step
If your chosen chain has few tracked orders, use its official nutrition information for other menu options. Do not relax your limits automatically just to increase the count, and do not describe missing entries as unavailable to purchase.
FDA’s menu information supplies the source context; the example counts are invented. GetMacros should report actual dataset-derived counts and keep pagination separate from match logic. A modest, clearly scoped collection is more trustworthy than a large-looking number that confuses ingredients, duplicate portions and complete orders.
Sources and example boundaries
- FDA: menu labeling
Written nutrition information and menu-labeling scope.
All food figures and prices in the worked example are invented to explain the method. They are not restaurant nutrition, tested recipes, shopping prices or personal dietary advice. Use the current label for the product you actually have.