Wouldnt a lot of instances of 2016 be simply because of its use as the year "2016" instead of anything mathematical? I found 38K instances of 2015, 42K of 2013 and 39K of 2014. I am not familiar with OEIS so just asking.
Yes you are right. That's a huge mistake on my part. I fixed it by using the prefix "seq:2017" so it only matches sequences that contain that number, not the metadata.
