I got half a million when I Googled 咄す, anyhow, the number is meaningless. I can get much higher ratio when I search 喰 and 食 instead of 喰い and 食い respectively, to a ratio of 1:64.
There are good reasons why search engine result test don't mean anything. To use them as evidence, you must first establish directi correlation between Kanji frequency and Google search engine number, then you must establish causation, because correlation do not imply causation, but causation imply correlation. Proving causation is difficult, I don't think you have the qualification nor the resources to do it.
If you are unable to establish causation or even correlation between Google search result number and Kanji frequency, you should not use Google search result as evidence. As Google number does not mean the frequency in actual Japanese written texts.
You best option is to directly find out Kanji frequency, that is finding out the primary data of Kanji frequency in all written Japanese, again I doubt you have the resources nor the skills to achieve this, neither do I. So your best option is to find out the secondary data(s). Which I have provided, Kanji frequency from Kodansha kanji dictonary ranks 食 as 328 most frequently used Kanji while 喰 is not even in the top 2500. Kodansha Kanji dictionary is obviously more reliable than your Google result ratio = frequency ratio logic.
You should learn to stop using "search engine test" as evidence, they have no academic or statistical weighting. They are acceptable evidence for internet tabloid or for internet trolls, but you won't find them in where academic standards are uphold, like in universities and to some extent in stackexchange. We both are long term numbers of JREF and we should lead by examples in our argument and references, that is our argument should be logical and we should have acceptable evidence to back them up.
Lastly, you should also to leave subjectivity and personal attacks in your argument, I am trying to post in an logical, objective and impartial manner, and you should do the same. Whether or not I live in Japan have nothing to do with the subject manner, and the same is true for you. This is why first person is not acceptable in academic report or college level essay, because personal experience is biased, hard to prove and will affect the impartial analysis of a report or an essay.
You think 喰い is
relatively commonly used in daily life or not in your opinion, until you provide acceptable evidence that it is
relatively commonly Kanji, I can not accept your opinion as a fact. And so far you have not provided indisputable evidence that 喰 or 喰い is
relatively common.
Also I would like to provide my operational term of "relatively common",
"relative" means in comparison to 食 in Japanese written text, not just literary words or movie titles.
"common" means have a high ratio, 1:4 should be high enough for me. If you can prove to me that 1 in 5 食/喰 is 喰, then all accept your proposition.
FGA: Google result counts are a meaningless metric.
