New Game - 'Google whacking'

silver · #1 01-February-2002, 12:08

A new craze is sweeping the world - or possibly only the silicon.com office - which is seeing people trying to stump the searching powers of Google by finding instances where searches yield one solitary result.

The rules of Googlewhacking' are simple. Type two words into the search field on Google and hit 'Google Search'. If the search returns with 'Results 1 - 1 of 1' then you win. If it finds more than one site on which those two words appear, you don't.

To further complicate matters, you can't use inverted commas to limit your search, as the words can appear anywhere on the site. It's not as easy as it sounds.
The game was the brainchild of Gary Stock (which interestingly returns 607,000 results) - who merely took people's habit of searching for odd combinations of words and christened it Googlewhacking.

silicon.com staff managed to find a few instances - 'Stromatolite Blackpool' and surprisingly 'Ranarium Toad', to name but two.

Sadly, by publishing these combinations of words on our own site we negate their Googlewhacker status - so we need you to help out and find more. If you find any more Googlewhackers register them below as a reader comment. All words must appear on www.dictionary.com in order for your Googlewhacker to be valid.

Go on - it's more fun than you'd think.

Not sure abt the last line

I do know a word which I used (perhaps only I use!

) that only returned one result, 'sadly' it does not (yet) appear in dictionary.com

Sil

#2 02-February-2002, 09:54

Only just noticed this thread Sil.....

BUT I DID IT

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...ism+%2B+pepper

Does the fact that I get immense satisfaction from doing it and that I may well try again at intervals mean I need medical attention?

Or should I get out less?

silver · #3 02-February-2002, 10:03

Geez (or should that be cheese

) thats impressive in a kinda sad way

You have spured me on to try it, I will have a go in a bit

well done

Sil

#4 02-February-2002, 14:20

Hey, this is easy

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

#5 02-February-2002, 14:33

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

silver · #6 02-February-2002, 14:34

- I tried it and I found it most difficult, guess I'm not doing it right ?

I was gonna comment that wayzgoose wasn't a valid word, but it is !

Wayz-goose \Wayz"-goose`\, n. [Wase stubble + goose.] 1. A stubble goose. [Obs. or Prov. Eng.]

2. An annual feast of the persons employed in a printing office

Guess my vocab needs some more work

Sil

#7 02-February-2002, 15:15

The easiest way is to think of ridiculous insults:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...s+%2B+monkfish

Ian · #8 02-February-2002, 17:59

Hmm, it is tricky, almost more interesting is wierd queries that do give hits.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ellian+haddock

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...tic+cheesecake

So close, but yet so far...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...astic+sheepdip

#9 02-February-2002, 18:24

Well, my best so far has been five. My idea is to use words of techie jargon from two completely different subject areas, still trying though ....

#10 02-February-2002, 18:32

Yay! Got one ....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

#11 02-February-2002, 18:35

Oh bother, the word "gamepad" doesn't appear in the dictionary. How silly is that? Everyone knows what a gamepad is. Still, I'll keep trying.

#12 02-February-2002, 19:41

Keep trying the weird insult trick:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...2B+pterodactyl

You do get to some most peculiar places

#13 02-February-2002, 19:55

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

#14 02-February-2002, 20:09

One from her indorrs:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

#15 02-February-2002, 20:23

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

You know I really have to stop putting off what I am supposed to be doing

Gecko · #16 02-February-2002, 20:32

When

is a bit ****ed off......

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...ered+manticore

#17 02-February-2002, 20:35

You were nearly there.

You just have to be a bit more obscure:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ian+coelacanth

#18 02-February-2002, 20:38

If she catches me not doing what I am supposed to be doing again, it will be:

http://www.google.com/search?q=draco...e+Search&hl=en

#19 02-February-2002, 21:29

http://216.239.39.101/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Yes I've checked both words in the dictionary this time.

#20 02-February-2002, 22:13

http://216.239.39.101/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Ok I know the page it links to is just a list of seventeen letter words, but hey, both of these appear in the dictionary and it doesn't link to any other lists of seventeen letter words.

Ian · #21 03-February-2002, 11:02

Heres the original (I suppose) googlewhacking page.

http://www.unblinking.com/heh/googlewhack.htm

The Dixon/Greeble Heisenwhack Principle

What to call a self-immolating Googlewhack (one that ceases to be unique after Google spiders a site where the whack is reported)? Kudos to Ray Dixon (of the Greeble domain) for coining the excellent term "Heisenwhack." He based the term loosely on the jargon entry for HeisenBUG.

Paralleling Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, clearly the observer (of a Googlewhack) alters the reality being observed (of a Googlewhack). Heisenberg himself might observe (...get it?), or perhaps Bohr would note, one benefit to web surfers: when measuring Heisenwhack Phenomena, timelines may be expressed in hours or days, rather than femtoseconds or attoseconds.

As a verb, one may 'Heisenwhack' a unique result by displaying it for Google to find (thereby spawning a second result). The noun 'Heisenwhack' refers to the page or citation that causes such dilution.

The Heisenwhack Compensator (for all you Trekkers :-) is easy to use. To find pages that contain your word pair, while excluding other pages that mention this topic, add '-googlewhack' to your query. Google will exclude pages containing that 'subtracted' term from your results.

Worldlife · #22 03-February-2002, 17:52

Just doing a search to find out if "Google" had the answer to a question I have just posed in a new thread. It doesn't seem to.

Have I hit the jackpot for this thread?

Sober MVVD

#23 03-February-2002, 18:02

......don't think so W/L...sorry......you need only ONE hit - not none at all

Worldlife · #24 03-February-2002, 18:09

W/L arrives post haste from the MVVD thread to find F/B sitting before him in judicial robes

In the face of the expert opinion placed before the jury Mi Lord I must plead guilty to not understanding (or reading) the detailed rules

#25 03-February-2002, 18:38

I am just a mere seeker of the truth

Let this be a lesson to you

I suggest an hours contemplation lying down in the dungeon

Worldlife · #26 03-February-2002, 18:42

Off to the dungeon to lay down

BBL

#27 04-February-2002, 19:41

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ipopette&meta=

oops, no, it's not in the dic.com...

DavidMad · #28 30-September-2002, 18:26

I thought I'd revisit this to see how times (& Google) have moved on.

Quite a few now bring back more than one page, some still valid though.

See you in another 6 months

#29 30-September-2002, 19:43

Only one of mine survived.

At least the 2 terms in the last effort managed to get listed in "most Insane Things Ever searched For Part ONE", but unfortunately not together.

Worldlife · #30 30-September-2002, 22:01

With John Major in the news thought I would do a search about the end of the affair.

This seemed to stump "Google" completely.

Is this a winner within the rules of Google whacking?

Zero results for uncurried fornication

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode