|
06 Feb 02 - 06:57 AM (#643664) Subject: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,PaulM This was brought to my attention by a recent article in the Independent newspaper. The basic rules of the game are to use the Google search engine to find two words which when entered, bring up one, and only one result. Some additional rules, from this page (The site was down, so I've linked to Google's cached version): 1. Googlefactors must exist in this dictionary. It's so easy to confirm: Google does the work! In the blue bar atop your Google results, accepted terms are linked to dictionary.com, and so appear 'underlined.' No line, no link = Googlethud!
2. Google also is the arbiter of a whack's uniqueness. Look to the right end of the blue bar atop your Google results. If you see "Results 1 - 1 of (any number),' you found exactly one hit = Googlewhack!
3. Google shows you an excerpt of the page you whacked. Look at that text. If it's merely a list of words, No Whack For You!
Phrases in quotes shouldn't be used, and I think an additional rule should be to ban geneology pages, which are just a list of names. My best result so far: fennish trek Paul |
|
06 Feb 02 - 07:19 AM (#643675) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST elizabethan kirschwasser
|
|
06 Feb 02 - 07:34 AM (#643683) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST A bit long, but a nice one: well, I want to find an elegant one-result query, so i can whack |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:05 AM (#643743) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Jim Dixon OK, I figure, as a folk music site we should keep this music-related: I first tried "flatulent dulcimer" but that got 15 hits! |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:10 AM (#643746) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,PaulM Nice one, Jim! I've been trying to get a 'two worder' that includes 'Mudcat' No luck yet Paul |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:15 AM (#643752) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Jim Dixon onanistic dulcimer works, too! And it brings up a wonderful limericks site! |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:22 AM (#643758) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Desdemona You boys will go blind if you keep doing that! -Mom |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:30 AM (#643765) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Amos So does cosmological philandery, but what would you expectfrom a stupid machine? LOL!! A |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:30 AM (#643766) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Jim Dixon Well, omnidirectional mudcat works, but it brings up the Mudcat itself. That almost feels like cheating, somehow. Anyway, it's not very interesting. |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:34 AM (#643770) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,PaulM OK, sorry, I thought some wordsmiths here might have some fun. Sorry to have bothered you. Paul |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:44 AM (#643777) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy This sounds like fun. I was amazed at what popped up for Atavistic Cuneiform... |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:45 AM (#643780) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: wysiwyg It's too Neo-Ontological for me. ~S~ |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:00 AM (#643796) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: SDShad denebian boondoggle |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:05 AM (#643800) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mr Red I am constantly putting in one or two words and getting no answers, unless you count paid for advertising type hits that don't even come close to what I want. Even so I often get no result but maybe thats on three words, as for only one result, as these search engines try to get more cute we find alternative spellings, contained words, goddamit rhymes will be next!!! as a game, I pass. |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:05 AM (#643801) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST denebian is not in google's dictinary (it's not underlined) so that doesn't count. Sorry |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:10 AM (#643804) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,priapic kerryman I only occur once, so I do! |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:12 AM (#643806) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST again, kerryman isn't in the google dictionary (it isn't underlined). Please scroll up and try to understand the rules |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:15 AM (#643809) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: wysiwyg Um, Guest, here at Mudcat it doesn't really work to try to herd the wet cats up ropes, or to ride a horse in a direction it ain't going. A game is for playing.... people are playing. ~S~ |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:23 AM (#643812) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: SDShad Okay, then:
So there. Nyah, nyah, nyah. |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:32 AM (#643818) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,priapic kerryman Yeah Guest ... Just shut your gob, otherwise I'll shove my doo-dah where the sun doesn't shine! |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:44 AM (#643827) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy Are we allowed to use words illegal in Scrabble, like names and places? I got one single hit for Mrrzy + my real last name, and it wasn't on the Mudcat either... but I somehow feel that's cheating. I got several hits, oddly enough, for Abidjan dumbfound, but again, I'm not sure if I'm cheating anyway. Am continuing to try, here and there... |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:55 AM (#643833) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy OK, got one: "bashi-bazouk idolatry" brings up something on the Knights of Malta... |
|
06 Feb 02 - 11:10 AM (#643838) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Jim Dixon PaulM: Please don't be offended! "It's not very interesting" was meant to refer to my results in one instance. Not to the game, which is wonderful! We ARE having fun. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. |
|
06 Feb 02 - 12:55 PM (#643915) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Kim C Undulating Camel. |
|
06 Feb 02 - 01:16 PM (#643927) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy Undulating Camel gave me over 1600 hits... |
|
06 Feb 02 - 01:16 PM (#643929) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Undulating Camel gets 1,830 results, which is a larger number than 1... |
|
06 Feb 02 - 01:24 PM (#643938) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum 4 tries: 1. bloody mudcat: 10 pages 2. f***ing mudcat: 4 pages - so much to foul language in Mudcat 3. callous mudcat: 1 page 4. periphrastic mudcat: googlewhack! Wilfried |
|
06 Feb 02 - 01:43 PM (#643948) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,PaulM Good one, Wilfred! |
|
06 Feb 02 - 01:45 PM (#643951) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum And now something totally different for the puissant pissant peasant (threadid=43354): puissant mudcat? googlewhack! Wilfried |
|
06 Feb 02 - 02:19 PM (#643980) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy Swordsman Breeziness got me some single chapter in a book somewhere, possibly by the Baroness Orczy... and Wilfried, you're hot! Tssss... |
|
06 Feb 02 - 02:27 PM (#643990) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Barbara Shaw Here's the 1 of 1 result from Shoregrass Music. Unfortunately, only music was in dictionary.com, although the result of the search was valid. This is a deficiency of dictionary.com however, since the term shoregrass does indeed exist in the botanical world as the common name for monanthochloe littoralis, and elsewhere (our bluegrass band). |
|
06 Feb 02 - 02:39 PM (#644001) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Not sure about it being a 'deficiency of dictionary.com.' It isn't in the 22 volume Oxford English Dictionary either. A number of sites, this one, for example, consider it to be "Shore Grass" Is it a new plant? Or a very rare plant? |
|
06 Feb 02 - 02:45 PM (#644005) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Dave the Gnome My Anagrammatical Zebra should be included in any A to Z of googlewhacks! Cheers
Dave the Gnome |
|
06 Feb 02 - 02:47 PM (#644008) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Sorry, Dave! Look at the rules as posted in the first message: Look at that text. If it's merely a list of words, No Whack For You! |
|
06 Feb 02 - 02:52 PM (#644011) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Barbara Shaw I'm completely out of my element talking about plant names, but here's the page where I found it: California Wetlands Information System. You're right, it's not really a deficiency, as I wouldn't expect these names to be included in most dictionaries. Anyway, I enjoyed playing the game and getting a 1 for 1 on my first try! |
|
06 Feb 02 - 03:01 PM (#644015) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Kim C Undulating Camel If you put in in quotation marks, you get one. Was I not supposed to do that? Otherwise it isn't a phrase. |
|
06 Feb 02 - 03:05 PM (#644019) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Kim C Okay, so I guess I did it wrong. I'll try again. |
|
06 Feb 02 - 03:08 PM (#644022) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Sorry Kim, From the first post: Phrases in quotes shouldn't be used |
|
06 Feb 02 - 03:16 PM (#644027) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Kim C Yes, thank you, I see that now. However it seemed logical to me that one would be searching for a phrase, for the two words together in sequence, not just for the two words to pop up somewhere together on a website. Inconsequential absquatulation almost works, except that absquatulation isn't in their dictionary. |
|
06 Feb 02 - 03:24 PM (#644037) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Kim C Is this more like it? |
|
06 Feb 02 - 03:31 PM (#644041) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Kim C Gargantuan sackbut :-P there's no rule against the site being in French, is there? |
|
06 Feb 02 - 03:52 PM (#644064) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Absolutely not. Gargantuan sackbut is quite superb. Best yet on this thread, if you ask me! |
|
06 Feb 02 - 07:29 PM (#644176) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Dave the Gnome Damn! And I thought I had one then! (When I saw Zebra-parakeet I thought it was not a just list of words.Wrong as usual:-( ) How about - Guest has David the gnome by the goolies. 1 hit - honest!!! Cheers DtG |
|
06 Feb 02 - 07:32 PM (#644177) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,Cookieless Anahootz Felonius Hoodwinking
I think he might be a relative of Thelonious Monk. Cousin, mebbe... |
|
06 Feb 02 - 07:35 PM (#644178) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Anahootz Hmm, I cut n pasted the link, and the google text is correct...wonder why it is spelled wrong on the post? |
|
06 Feb 02 - 08:29 PM (#644204) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Jim Dixon Four more! All musical (sort of) polyandrous guitarist turns up a porn site!
|
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:00 PM (#644217) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Alice chokecherry harmonium |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:02 PM (#644218) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Alice ooops, chokecherry harmonium wasn't in the Google dictionary. Let me try that again... |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:05 PM (#644219) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Alice um, on second look, chokecherry harmonium is in the Google dictionary, and turns up one result. My eyes are having trouble reading that tiny white type reversed on the blue bar. |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:19 PM (#644232) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Anahootz poorly-concieved rubberneckers hehehe... |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:23 PM (#644235) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Anahootz HAHAHA! This one is pretty good! |
|
06 Feb 02 - 09:54 PM (#644256) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Philibuster Filk Sonatina Half-Diminished Feline All I could come up with. =P |
|
06 Feb 02 - 10:53 PM (#644276) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: raredance Despite what we have all been told, banjo and porsche comes up with over 2500 hits. rich r |
|
07 Feb 02 - 12:08 AM (#644307) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Crazy Eddie Oscillating weasel Bullseye! (no hits for ferret, several for dog & cat)! |
|
07 Feb 02 - 12:47 AM (#644329) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: SDShad scabrous carpetbagger Not much beats oscillating weasel, gargantuan sackbut, felonious hoodwinking, or whore-mongering whippersnapper, though. |
|
07 Feb 02 - 01:07 AM (#644333) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Haruo Kul'! It works in Esperanto, too. Germanio orikteropo — however, no dictionary.com underlining. Liland |
|
07 Feb 02 - 01:22 AM (#644340) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: technission flatulent arteriogram What can I say? I'm an ol'fart and I just lauged my gas off reading old "Cat Fart" thread... 8)# |
|
07 Feb 02 - 01:25 AM (#644341) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Haruo kompreni Lilandejo — probably not fair to use my own website as a search term. Sorry. Liland |
|
07 Feb 02 - 01:30 AM (#644343) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: technission Oops, it's a wordlist for flatulent arteriogram, I withdraw my er...emission |
|
07 Feb 02 - 08:45 AM (#644461) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 09:47 AM (#644493) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Amos 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 10:16 AM (#644515) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 10:31 AM (#644525) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Sheikh Mucous Shelfy Mudcat Sorry Wilfred, but it's a list of words. As we all know, that makes for "No Whack For You!" |
|
07 Feb 02 - 11:57 AM (#644579) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
07 Feb 02 - 01:22 PM (#644630) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy 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...) |
|
07 Feb 02 - 03:38 PM (#644720) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
07 Feb 02 - 03:50 PM (#644728) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Captain Haddock is a character from the famous Belgian catoon Tintin Maybe you don't stay in enough! *grin* |
|
07 Feb 02 - 03:53 PM (#644735) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST catoon = cartoon (obviously...) |
|
07 Feb 02 - 05:33 PM (#644796) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 06:05 PM (#644806) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,PaulM 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 06:16 PM (#644815) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 06:39 PM (#644829) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mark Cohen 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 08:02 PM (#644891) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,PaulM 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 08:04 PM (#644894) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST Good one Mark, but what a horrible page! |
|
07 Feb 02 - 08:08 PM (#644900) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Amos 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 09:27 PM (#644946) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D *sigh*...should have known...I was so excited I didn't notice I had spelled it wrong..ah, well...back to the hunt! |
|
07 Feb 02 - 09:40 PM (#644953) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: E.T. 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. |
|
07 Feb 02 - 10:25 PM (#644978) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mark Cohen 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.) |
|
07 Feb 02 - 10:47 PM (#644995) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mark Cohen 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 |
|
07 Feb 02 - 11:05 PM (#645007) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D such a game.... gangrenous swizzle still gets 2 hits..ah, well, there's always tomorrow |
|
08 Feb 02 - 12:45 AM (#645076) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: technission 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. |
|
08 Feb 02 - 04:52 AM (#645164) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum 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 |
|
08 Feb 02 - 05:02 AM (#645167) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum Beg your pardon, inserted the wrong link. Correction: postnatal mudcat Wilfried |
|
08 Feb 02 - 06:21 AM (#645188) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum 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 |
|
08 Feb 02 - 06:26 AM (#645189) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wilfried Schaum 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 |
|
08 Feb 02 - 07:09 AM (#645204) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Wolfgang the pair with the fewest letters I have found: Rüböl Mär Wolfgang |
|
08 Feb 02 - 09:27 AM (#645276) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: SDShad hibernian codswallop Googlewhack! |
|
08 Feb 02 - 12:28 PM (#645395) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: pattyClink Eureka! You cats have developed an automatic band-naming device! |
|
08 Feb 02 - 02:22 PM (#645471) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,AndyG 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 |
|
08 Feb 02 - 05:52 PM (#645574) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST 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* |
|
13 Feb 02 - 01:16 PM (#649221) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy 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. |
|
20 Feb 02 - 01:26 PM (#654098) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Mrrzy And another musical one: linguica bagpipe. Guess them scots don't eat sausage when they can get haggis... |
|
20 Feb 02 - 02:07 PM (#654111) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D 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 |
|
20 Feb 02 - 02:46 PM (#654116) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST 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 |
|
20 Feb 02 - 03:22 PM (#654128) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D 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? |
|
20 Feb 02 - 03:31 PM (#654134) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D 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... |
|
20 Feb 02 - 03:48 PM (#654148) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D among the things I found is the 'origin' of the game and details of the concept with variations and links and musings |
|
20 Feb 02 - 05:05 PM (#654211) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,selkie Woohoo! I got a googlewack with lambasting rubberneck. |
|
20 Feb 02 - 05:10 PM (#654215) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: guest Thanks for the background, Bill LOL, selkie |
|
20 Feb 02 - 05:48 PM (#654235) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Uncle_DaveO 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 |
|
20 Feb 02 - 06:02 PM (#654246) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Uncle_DaveO 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 |
|
20 Feb 02 - 06:37 PM (#654265) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,Ed 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 |
|
20 Feb 02 - 06:55 PM (#654280) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Bill D 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. |
|
20 Feb 02 - 06:59 PM (#654285) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: GUEST,Ed 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? |
|
20 Feb 02 - 07:24 PM (#654306) Subject: RE: BS: New Game: Googlewhacking! From: Uncle_DaveO 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 |