|Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 09:04 am: |
A Googlewhack. It's where you put two words in Google and get at least one hit but *only* one hit. Apparently, this is a new sport. Googlewhack chasing.
My first success was with 'megazanthus' and 'cuboid'.
Anyone else heard of this term? And can you get your own Googlewhack? Apparently, people have not only been chasing Googlewhacks in hyperspace but then they have been going off to meet them in real life, as reported in today London Times. Des
|Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 10:19 am: |
|Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 10:32 am: |
That's brilliant, Nicholas. How did you manage it?
Better than my own example, because one of my words was a word I'd made up, which is probably cheating! Des
|Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 07:03 pm: |
|Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 07:39 pm: |
My turn! "Galvanic impressionability" yields:
|Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 12:08 am: |
|Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 05:07 am: |
|Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 07:39 am: |
Rhys, that sounds like something you'd even find together in a story. If that works as a googlewhack, then it's brilliant!
|Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 05:15 am: |
Suprisingly simple, that one!
|Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 05:19 am: |
Am I doing this right??? It seems way too easy. Maybe I shouldn't have the quotation marks?
|Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 07:39 am: |
Ahhh! Quotation marks are not allowed at all.
|Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 07:57 am: |
Er... it still seems too easy!
|Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 08:02 am: |
OK, am I still doing something wrong?
|Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 08:03 am: |
Rhys, there are some rules here:
|Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 03:30 am: |
Well I finally got in the whack stack with the following:
I just knew that 'lachrymals' was a winner. My other googlewhacks failed the test for a variety of reasons, though I still believe that 'humgruffin glance' was a valid one!
|Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 03:39 am: |
Well done, Rhys. But it's a strange one - it doesn't actually throw up 'lachrymals' in the initial hit.
Still, you've done better than me. As I said before: my whack was cheating: 'megazanthus' and 'cuboid' because I made up the first word, though it *is* now appearing more and more on general hits, but not quite so much (in multitudinous droves) as my other made up word: 'nemonymous'!
|Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 05:34 am: |
Hey Des, a very interesting one here:
which then links to a web page displaying a part of Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum".
Eerie, or what?
|Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 05:41 am: |
links you to a fan piece of star trek voyager
|Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 05:56 am: |
Rhys is right, it's not that difficult.
I better start doing something useful now
|Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 05:59 am: |
Correct that, it's:
leviathans velocipedes (both plural)
Sorry about that
|Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 07:35 pm: |
I prefered 'superluminal metempsychosis', but alas the link I got was to a Magician's Dictionary, and thus ruled out by rule #3.
|Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:40 am: |
|Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 07:43 am: |
|Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 05:45 am: |
Forgive the resurrection of the post, but I've been trying all week and after so many single figure hit registers, this one is definitely getting posted.
the closure! the closure!
|Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 06:04 am: |
Hmmm... the closure was not so potent as I had presupposed.
A query though - working on the rationale that word lists do not count as googlewhacks, if I turn up one legitimate hit but 6 other word-list hits, do I still qulaify for having whacked Google?
If so, 'pluperfect metastasis' qualifies.
|Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
Someone just wrote to my email address saying I am the above Googlewhack. And, upon investigating, I discovered that indeed it was correct!
But the email was couched like a chain letter, saying that I now ought to come up with a Googlewhack for someone else.
|Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 07:27 pm: |
Do you realize that this thread has destroyed the googlewhacks discussed, because now those terms link to here?
|Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:20 am: |
That is indeed deeply philosophical.
I also created nemonymity and by creating it destroyed it.
des (pretentious as ever)
|Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:40 pm: |
I have now received a communication from someone else - that I am another googlewhack:
'tailfin' and 'fornicated'.
Are there teams of these people going about all day looking for googlewhacks?
And do my stories tend to lend themselves to such discoveries?
|Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 08:14 am: |
Des- would you be so kind as to tell me what a googlewhack is? Some kind of online tag?
|Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 08:15 am: |
Oh my. I just read the top of the thread.
Sorry. Brain is slow today.