Googlewhacks

[IndieSinger]

Have you found any? What are they? I just found two! antiestablishmentarianism cheesecake and unmerciless screwdriver!

[IndieSinger]

Budgerigar p�t�! Mmm, tasty...

[kags]

pharmacological satanology

[Shirlz]

Funnily enough Budgerigar p�t� isn't a proper googlewhack...I googled it and got 2 results. A googlewhack is a google search for 2 unique words that bring only 1 resulting entry...the others are fine though :S

[claireelise]

I found Pejorative Hawkmoth and posted it on the official site and the dave gorman site so i am not sure if it is still a googlewhack. Did anyone else notice the fatal flaw in DG's googlewhack??? Rarebit Nutters is not a googlewhack as it nutters is not in dictionary.com

[BadBob]

claireelise, your making the assumption that something on the internet must be on Google.

[IndieSinger]

Shirlz, you're right! Even though it's the same page, there are two results - I'm sure that second one wasn't there yesterday! claireelise, Pejorative Hawkmoth IS still a googlewhat (but perhaps only until Google does another metacrawl over the official site and Dave Gorman's site! I didn't realised that about rarebit nutters! For some reason, dictionary.com has an entry for nutter but not the pluralised form. I quickly checked other plurals and they're there.

[jenstar]

Beginner's luck? It took me about 40 seconds to get this: micturition cummerbund

[sft42]

Is this possibly the single most useless ever application of the internet?

Seems fun though....off for a bash at it.

[jenstar]

"Solipsistic hydrostatics". Also "australopithecus blancmange" returns five documents, but four of them are just word lists. Does that count?

[sft42]

I have found a massive problem with this....dictionary.com is a really poor site....is it only an american dictionary it uses?

I have found a couple (botia plinth being one) but at least one or more of the words are recognised by the OED but not by dictionary.com....am annoyed now!

[darth vader]

ha ha you will find that all your unique googlewhacks no longer are correct examples cos this answerbank question comes up in the search too, so now you will always get 2 results

[IndieSinger]

Yep darth vader that's the point of Googlewhacks - once you've found them and posted them, after Google has done it's next metacrawl over the page, they're not Googlewhacks any more. That's why they can only be your Googlewhacks and no-one else can claim them. stf42It's a bind about dictionary.com, isn't it. I think the reason it's used it because that's the dictionary that Google checks with (you know when it tells you if it thinks you've spelled a word wrong). jenstar, the official answer from the official site for you is: I understand the theory that since word lists shouldn't be counted as a whack, they shouldn't be counted against a whack. (It's a logical extension of the theory that when you find money on the street you should keep it, but when you lose money on the street everybody else should give it back to you.) However, our Whack! script has plenty to do in verifying both the existence of just one result, and Google's recognition of the dictionary.com element. We've considered checking for word lists, but it's not entirely trivial. So, you'll just have accept that if you don't actually do something, you won't actually get credit for it. Sort of like... real life.

[shurn001]

thunderized plotter is one more