 sj |
||
|
||
BS: New Game: Googlewhacking!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 20 Feb 02 - 07:24 PM All I can tell you is that "fennish trek", posted above two weeks ago, still shows up as a one-hit; doesn't show the appearance here at Mudcat. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,Ed Date: 20 Feb 02 - 06:59 PM Bill, I kinda understood what you were saying, until: I don't think Google indexes it's own searches You lost me there. Care to explain, Sir? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 02 - 06:55 PM it's interesting...because Google only indexes whatever pages are 'live' on Mudcat when it goes by, that is, on the daily list, a post of a 'whack'...(ummm..NOT 'wack') here may not get caught. But if you send your brag to certain places, it may be caught very quickly...it all depends on when & how often Google looks there and adds it to its index. I don't think Google indexes it's own searches, so just doing the search doesn't mean it's automatically ruined. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,Ed Date: 20 Feb 02 - 06:37 PM Dave, Without scrolling back up to check, I think the arguement goes as follows: On finding a 'googlewhack' you've found the only document on the web that contains those two words. By the nature of your announcing it to the web community, you've created a second webpage that contains those words, hence it will no longer be a 'googlewhack' In reality it isn't that simple, but I hope that answers your query Ed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 20 Feb 02 - 06:02 PM Okay, I now understand "Google's dictionary", but another comment earlier doesn't seem to check out. It was said, as I understand it, that when a combination is found it automatically becomes part of a document or file that would be found on subsequent tries, so a given combination would thereafter find two or more sites instead of the single one which made the Googlewhack. This did not occur with rabbinic caravanserai, nor does it appear to have happened with a number of the Googlewhacks claimed above. Am I misunderstanding something here? Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 20 Feb 02 - 05:48 PM Rabbinic caravanserai does it. It's a site that does deal with a bunch of words, but in an explicative way, not just a list. It discusses the words used as concepts, in a Biblical context, not just as definitions of listed terms. There's reference above to "Google's dictionary". I don't understand this reference. How does "Google's dictionary" come into play? Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: guest Date: 20 Feb 02 - 05:10 PM Thanks for the background, Bill LOL, selkie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,selkie Date: 20 Feb 02 - 05:05 PM Woohoo! I got a googlewack with lambasting rubberneck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 02 - 03:48 PM among the things I found is the 'origin' of the game and details of the concept with variations and links and musings |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 02 - 03:31 PM weird...I can search Google 'groups' ..(newsgroup search,,and 321 hits)..but not Google itself. no...wait...I got it! I am using Opera browser, which has Google search (AND AllTheWeb) in it's toolbars, and THAT is what is suddenly not working. If I go to the Google site first, it works fine....strange..Allthe Web and Google groups work fine from the Opera toolbar... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 02 - 03:22 PM happened again...I did a search on the term "Googlewhacking"...and got a 'could not connect' message... the same search in AlltheWeb was instant and got 421 hits.....maybe it is routing problems? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Date: 20 Feb 02 - 02:46 PM Hmmm, I have to (sort of) disagree, Bill I've never (for more than a minute) had problems with Google. In addition to having a great name, Google is, IMHO, simply superb. It is one of the few 'dot coms' that actually makes any money. It does so through well thought out and elegant design. No pop ups, no banners. I'm a BIG Google fan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 02 - 02:07 PM funny, Google has not been responding part of the time the last week or so...maybe the game has gotten out of hand and overloaded them *grin* FastSearch (AllTheWeb) is very large and works all the time, but they don't have the built in dictionary concept, and lets face it, "Google" was just a masterful choice of names...like Kleenex or Coke or Yahoo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy Date: 20 Feb 02 - 01:26 PM And another musical one: linguica bagpipe. Guess them scots don't eat sausage when they can get haggis... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy Date: 13 Feb 02 - 01:16 PM OK, I've got a musical one, although it took a neologism to do it... Dulcimer Glocalization. And it's not a word list. Glocalization, for you old folks, is the new term for marketing a global product locally, as in McDonald's having Ronald McDonald in the US and Asterix (shock! Horror!) in France. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Date: 08 Feb 02 - 05:52 PM terpsichory isn't in the Google/dictionary.com list No whack for you. Go to the bottom of the class and try to do better in future! *grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,AndyG Date: 08 Feb 02 - 02:22 PM Of course, if, during a spot of scintillating terpsichory with a toroidal diplodocus you wanted to point out misogynistic latencies in a euripidean prognosis then there just might be point to this.
AndyG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: pattyClink Date: 08 Feb 02 - 12:28 PM Eureka! You cats have developed an automatic band-naming device! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: SDShad Date: 08 Feb 02 - 09:27 AM hibernian codswallop Googlewhack! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Feb 02 - 07:09 AM the pair with the fewest letters I have found: Rüböl Mär Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 08 Feb 02 - 06:26 AM Oh God, let me never forget a slash again! Here the corrected version: Beware of The Canonical List of Anamonics. It might prove helpful for scrabblers, but since it is a wordlist it ruined a lot of fine googlewhacks like gimcrack mudcat, flabbergasted mudcat. diabolic mudcat fractional mudcat friable mudcat fricassee mudcat fricative mudcat hidebound mudcat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 08 Feb 02 - 06:21 AM Beware of The Canonical List of Anamonics. It might prove helpful for scrabblers, but since it is a wordlist it ruined a lot of fine googlewhacks like gimcrack mudcat, flabbergasted mudcat. And here some more googlewhacking mudcats. Do you know what effing is? Leafing through a dictionary with special reference to the letter F. But i did some h-ing, too. diabolic mudcat fractional mudcat friable mudcat fricassee mudcat fricative mudcat hidebound mudcat Wilfried |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 08 Feb 02 - 05:02 AM Beg your pardon, inserted the wrong link. Correction: postnatal mudcat Wilfried |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 08 Feb 02 - 04:52 AM Shame, shame on me! After sending the mail of Feb.7th I reread PaulM's definition and noticed that more than two words disqualify for a regular googlewhack. I repent and deliver another one about the dangers of labouring with mudcat: While there are 3 prenatal mudcats, we only have 2 perinatal ones, and in the postnatal stage only 1 is left: Horray for the postnatal mudcat. Concerning Bashi-bazouk: This form reflects the Ottoman orthography in arabic letters (Head-his crazy). Modern Turkish orthography in Latin letters gives basibozuk as one word (Steuernagel, Redhouse etc.) Bashi-bazouk mudcat(s) are two, too. Perinatal ones, perhaps? Wilfried |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: technission Date: 08 Feb 02 - 12:45 AM Weighing back in tonight (triumphantly) with googol zoetrope...(a real word despite Coppola using it in his company name) pun alert [now it's a reel word] I really wanted to find something heroic using the word googol which is, of course (?), the correct spelling of the name for a one followed by 100 zeros, but that's all I came up with tonight. Get some sleep all you hooligans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D Date: 07 Feb 02 - 11:05 PM such a game.... gangrenous swizzle still gets 2 hits..ah, well, there's always tomorrow |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mark Cohen Date: 07 Feb 02 - 10:47 PM Oh, all right, JUST one more, and then I REALLY haved to get to work... spanked shawm ...which will give the early-music fans something to titter about. (The site is a collection of essays on Swedish jazz!) Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mark Cohen Date: 07 Feb 02 - 10:25 PM Yes, that site is an awful site. Turns out "pentatonic pulchritude" works, too, linking to the same garbage page. But it's musical! Aloha, Mark (I don't see myself getting addicted to this, fortunately...but it is fun.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: E.T. Date: 07 Feb 02 - 09:40 PM Who woulda believed humongous harmonium would have TWELVE hits? I shall persevere in honor of the "Inn Group" song chorus - We'll accompany the queen when she plays mandolin and keep a set of drums for when the king sits in - playing roott, toot, root, toot, sha-hoot - a doodl-i-dum On the lute, flute, bass piccolo and harmonium! (bass piccolo was over 1200 - sigh!) Elaine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D Date: 07 Feb 02 - 09:27 PM *sigh*...should have known...I was so excited I didn't notice I had spelled it wrong..ah, well...back to the hunt! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Amos Date: 07 Feb 02 - 08:08 PM That's Mark -- always chasing the angles!! Marchand de tapis is a rug-seller, which in the context of 1965 France, when Tintin and Milou was first written would be considered a sort of slur. Captain haddock is a burly tough old seadog who is always uttering expletives like "Mille sabords!" (a thousand ports or slopholes) or "Tonnerres de Brest!!" (Thunders of Brest! (a shipping port in Brittany)). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Date: 07 Feb 02 - 08:04 PM Good one Mark, but what a horrible page! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,PaulM Date: 07 Feb 02 - 08:02 PM Not sure what you mean, Bill? cognoscenti whack gives me 193 hits. If the blue bar says 1-1 then it's a whack! I didn't invent this game! Paul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mark Cohen Date: 07 Feb 02 - 06:39 PM Hey, I got one with my second try: and it's alliterative and even meaningful...especially if you've ever read the classic, Flatland. pentagonal pulchritude Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D Date: 07 Feb 02 - 06:16 PM well, what are the rules when Google gives you one hit, but says that it eliminated one that was almost the same, in this case as a 2nd use at the same site? cognoscenti whack |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,PaulM Date: 07 Feb 02 - 06:05 PM You're right Bill, Even citterns whack gets 2 results. I guess we should blame our forefarthers with their 'whack fol the diddle' nonsense *grin* Paul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D Date: 07 Feb 02 - 05:33 PM started out to find a word to team with 'whack' for a hit, but WOW it's tough!...got it down to 2 with "deciduous whack" but "coniferous whack" got hundreds,,,weird!..got to 3 with a couple...still trying |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Date: 07 Feb 02 - 03:53 PM catoon = cartoon (obviously...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Date: 07 Feb 02 - 03:50 PM Captain Haddock is a character from the famous Belgian catoon Tintin Maybe you don't stay in enough! *grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Jim Dixon Date: 07 Feb 02 - 03:38 PM Mrrzy: Yours is OK. But who is Captain Haddock? What is "Marchand de tapis"? Maybe I don't get out enough. I usually don't read non-music threads these days, but I can't resist word games. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy Date: 07 Feb 02 - 01:22 PM So I"m OK with mine because it is a word no matter what? Or do I have to do something with another of Captain Haddock's lovely insults? (Marchand de tapis was always one of my faves...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Jim Dixon Date: 07 Feb 02 - 11:57 AM We have a problem here. It seems that if one of your 'words' is hyphenated, like 'Neo-Onotological' (WYSIWYG's entry), or 'poorly-conceived' and 'whore-mongering,' (Anahootz's entries) there may be an inconsistency between the way Google treats it and the way dictionary.com treats it. In all three of these cases, it's clear that Google is treating the hyphenated term as one word, as shown by the fact that 'poorly conceived rubberneckers,' as 3 words, gets several more hits. But dictionary.com is treating 'poorly-conceived' as two words, as shown by the fact that there is a break in the underlining. If you click on 'poorly' you will get the definition of 'poorly' and if you click on 'conceived' you will get the definition for 'conceived.' This is not the case for 'bashi-bazouk' (Mrrzy's entry), where the continuous underlining shows that dictionary.com recognizes 'bashi-bazouk' as one word. And indeed, if you click on 'bashi-bazouk' you will get the definition. So we may have to disqualify those 3 entries on a technicality. But I await an official ruling from the judges. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Date: 07 Feb 02 - 10:31 AM Sheikh Mucous Shelfy Mudcat Sorry Wilfred, but it's a list of words. As we all know, that makes for "No Whack For You!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 07 Feb 02 - 10:16 AM This is a little story containig three googlewhacks about the naked mythical mudcat Keith who met the shelfy mudcat Sheila by whom he begat an only son who later on led the tribe and was named Sheikh Mucous Shelfy Mudcat. Here the story ends. Compliments to PaulM. Wilfried |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Amos Date: 07 Feb 02 - 09:47 AM Found another one,. Stop me before I waste the whole day! indigency prepositional, a sorry condition of being all out of relative locations, I think.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 07 Feb 02 - 08:45 AM At first: thanks dear friends for the praise (no googlewhack, alas). But this is one: thanks esteemed colleagues for the eclogues. Yeah, that's the Oxford University Press I love. And now let's whack again: Have you ever seen a mudcat fighting windmills? That's a quixotic mudcat And now to you, PaulM! What devil tempted you to introduce this bloody game of googlewhacking? I'm afraid I'm becoming an addict, so we should create a GEA! Wilfried |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: technission Date: 07 Feb 02 - 01:30 AM Oops, it's a wordlist for flatulent arteriogram, I withdraw my er...emission |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Haruo Date: 07 Feb 02 - 01:25 AM kompreni Lilandejo — probably not fair to use my own website as a search term. Sorry. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: technission Date: 07 Feb 02 - 01:22 AM flatulent arteriogram What can I say? I'm an ol'fart and I just lauged my gas off reading old "Cat Fart" thread... 8)# |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Haruo Date: 07 Feb 02 - 01:07 AM Kul'! It works in Esperanto, too. Germanio orikteropo — however, no dictionary.com underlining. Liland |