The # of Estimated Galaxies increased 10 fold. Where does that leave our # of stars estimate? I have found oddly different answers through my multiple google searches.

I found one article that mentioned this did not alter the estimated number of stars in the universe. Link: http://www.universetoday.com/30305/how-many-galaxies-in-the-universe/

Yet other article gave the estimate of stars an increase. Link: http://gizmodo.com/we-were-very-wrong-about-the-number-of-galaxies-in-the-1787750693

There were other examples but they also had similar contradictory answers.
Thank you.
The sensationalist headlines mask a rather more prosaic result that has absolutely no effect on the number of stars we might estimate are present in the observable universe today.

The study in question has discovered (actually it was always supposed and suggested that this was the case), that the distribution of galaxy masses was much more skewed to lower mass galaxies in the past. That is, there were many more small galaxies in the past. But this happens at the expense of the large galaxies - there were fewer large galaxies in the past. To first order, the overall mass contained within galaxies stays the same and so long as the ratio of stellar mass to luminosity (since this is actually what is measured) remains roughly constant, than any estimate of stellar numbers stays the same.

Actually, a better estimate for the number of stars in the observable universe uses the present day galactic mass function and then extrapolates that to the size of the observable universe today. This is a far more honest estimate, since we have a much better understanding of how many stars there are in our local part of the universe and can then invoke the cosmological principle to say that other places (but not times) in the universe are similar. This cannot possibly be affected by the new study since that is dealing with the numbers of galaxies in the past.