I believe you all are confusing two different issues here a little bit.
Firstly, there are very specific reasons why the hits are counted as they are. We decided a long time ago (and would still agree) that the # of hits should represent how many found words, not found 'instances'. Consider some of the differences:
1) The total number of 'units' found, i.e. the number of verses is already expressed in the "Verse x of x" text. So, it would be redundant to have the number of hits represent how many different units were found.
2) The number of hit 'matches' is a bit ambiguous. Consider a verse that contains God twice and love once, is this counted as once or twice? Or what about a verse that contains God twice and you twice? In a sense, you could argue this verse has anywhere from 1 to 4 matches, depending on how you wanted to count it. This is ambiguity, which isn't good for statistical research.
3) The number of hit words. This is what we are doing, and provides a good, exact number. The number can be broken down very clearly and accurately, but provides us different information from the number of verses.
Now, I believe it is a separate issue why the [FIELD] command is counted as a hit word, since as you all have pointed out, it doesn't show up in the search text. This is, frankly, more of a legacy decision, since [FIELD] represents a fictitious word at the beginning or end of the verse. So, it naturally was counted We've had this in place for at least 12 years, and nobody seems to have been bothered by it being counted as a hit until now. We'll look into excluding [FIELD] from the results, as we do agree it is a bit strange to mark it as a hit when it doesn't exist, and it isn't even counted in the Analysis.
One final note, don't forget about your friendly simple construct! You can do so much better searching there (if necessary), including the Place command, that lets you specify the location of a word based on its number in the verse, rather than proximity to a bounds. If you note, a search like this doesn't add the 'spurious' hits:
Screen shot 2013-07-08 at 7.24.34 AM.png 151.55KB