View previous topic | View next topic


Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

263983.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:33 am Reply with quote

Just how difficult are they to find?

Two words which when entered into Google as raw text (without quotes or other modifiers) render only one hit.

Presumably if you alternate the letters with spaces then you can report the Googlewhack without it ceasing to be one.

It took me about 20 minutes to find

s u p e r o g a t o r y***p a n j a n d r u m

which I quite like although "s u p e r o g a t o r y" appears not to be a word despite frequent appearances on the web. It should be supererogatory it seems, which is a shame. In honour of Dave Gorman I shall now try and find a second one, or maybe two more 'cos of the 'not being a real word' thing.

263984.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:46 am Reply with quote

m e s e m b r a n t h e m u m***r a t

King of Quok
263986.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:58 am Reply with quote

Shouldn't it be mesambryanthemum?

'Episcopal brontosaur' was one I recall being given as an example, but I've no idea if it still is.

263987.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:59 am Reply with quote

i n d i s c r i m i n a t e***c o s t e r m o n g e r y

263988.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:00 am Reply with quote

King of Quok wrote:
Shouldn't it be mesambryanthemum?

'Episcopal brontosaur' was one I recall being given as an example, but I've no idea if it still is.

Quite possibly, I took Google's prompt on the spelling though so I accept no responsibility for that - I'll check it however.

Quite a lot of hits for mesembranthemum but you're right in that it should have a y in it after the r.

Still one more to find then.

Last edited by Celebaelin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:07 am; edited 3 times in total

263989.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:04 am Reply with quote

a couple of points for googlewhacking virgins, the rules state the word must appear in googles dictionary ie they must be underlined and in blue in the top right of google, and if you plan on showing anyone later of your brilliant find dont post it here or it will no longer be a googlewhack

263990.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:08 am Reply with quote


So 'costermongery' isn't allowed either (poor dictionary frankly)? Where are these 'rules' of which you speak?

'Harmonious' is not a legitimate word either according to that definition, so sod that tbh.

264011.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:05 am Reply with quote

*stupid rules*

p e r a m b u l a t o r y***s a c k b u t t

wouldn't qualify if sackbutt has to be blue in the top right but I'm going to ignore that for the time being at least. The above and

i n d i s c r i m i n a t e***c o s t e r m o n g e r y

are my best offers for the time being, until such time as I decide that I need to find at least one Googlewhack which satisfies lex's conditions anyway.

I maintain that you'd find the first in a medieval marching band and the second in any and every market selling fresh veg. So there.

One slight oddity, whilst

i n d i s c r i m i n a t e***c o s t e r m o n g e r y

generates only one hit the (cached) page it leads to does not in fact contain the word 'indiscriminate' but instead contains 'indiscriminately'. Googling 'indiscriminately costermongery' generates 10 hits however (11 now I suppose); wtf?

264020.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:21 am Reply with quote

from the googlewhack website, i didnt just make them up you see

Rule Number One: Your two Googlefactors must exist in Google's view of this dictionary. Not your view; Google's view! Google does the work, and Google has the final word! In the blue bar atop your Google results, accepted terms are linked, and so appear 'underlined.' No line, no link = Googlejack! (As in, You've got jack)

Rule Number Two: 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!

Rule Number Three: Google shows you an excerpt of the page you whacked. Look at that text. If it's merely a list of words (such as a bibliography, concordance, encyclopedia, glossary, thesaurus, dictionary, domain names, or plain old machine-generated random garbage), No Whack For You

264023.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:29 am Reply with quote

i thought i had one with *spoonable*filibuster* but the filibuster came in a list of popular searches on the site so i dont think it counts :-(

264231.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:56 am Reply with quote

Coincidence, as at the moment I'm reading the excellent book, Dave Gorman's Googlewhack adventure.

264241.  Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:16 am Reply with quote

And an interesting (if a little obvious), but since the books publishing, not a single one of the googlewhacks that Mr. Gorman found are actually GoogleWhacks anymore!

As explained within the book, a great way to get ideas for possible googlewhacks is to do a crossword, and take at random, words out of the crossword. The average crossword is a haven for unrelated words, and it gives you the pleasure of doubling your hobby. why do JUST the crossword!!!!

887042.  Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:31 pm Reply with quote

Having just watched Dave Gorman's recording of the show based on his book again I thought I'd experiment once more and I found something odd. Perambulatory gets 141,000 hits and peripatetic gets 330,000 but perambulatory peripatetic gets 976,000 - have Google altered the way their searches run? Is it even possible to get a Googlewhack any more?

892650.  Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:06 pm Reply with quote

The numbers quoted on Google's search results pages are estimates, which could help explain your variation. They can sometimes vary wildy from week to week.

I'd imagine it's virtually impossible to Googlewhack any more, in English at least...

892719.  Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:03 am Reply with quote

TheAlex wrote:

I'd imagine it's virtually impossible to Googlewhack any more, in English at least...

Time to start BINGwhacking, so?


Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group