Fire up Google and type in “chav stakhanovites“… and you get us!
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata’s GooglewhackJanuary 24th, 2006 |
 15 comments to Samizdata’s Googlewhack |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Even on an internet full of strangeness, that’s an odd thing to type into google.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m afraid it doesn’t count as a Googlewhack as it breaks rule 1:
See
here for details.
gaah:
Firefox Fumbled the link:
http://www.googlewhack.com/rules.htm
Verity will never read my comments again….
Should the Pedant General be allowed to get away with committing such faux pas? And that attempt to foist blame on Firefox for his/her incompetence – the General’s commission is running out!
Hey cut me some slack.
At least I’m using Firefox…
I have no idea what “Google’s view of this dictionary” means.
Surely you jest!
Perry,
I jest not! I have merely adjusted, temporarily, my correctness conditions…
http://infinitivesunsplit.blogspot.com/2005/08/weekend-competition_04.html
Toodle Pip!
PG
The Pedant-General – Serves you right for using Firefox. Firefox buggers everything up.
Julian Morrison – That was a funny comment.
I’m a sitemeter junkie and love some of the search results hits I get (even posted some of my favorites.
‘chav stakhanovites’ is good, but does it beat ‘leaning about scabs’ or ‘michelle wie rump’?
Did anyone else try XWL’s ‘googlewhacks’ and get googlejack?!
Try ‘chav stencilists’ instead.
What the bloody hell is a Googlewhack? And why are they good/interesting/desirable?
It’s a daft thing to kill time while you’re waiting for something else. Type two or three words into google (e.g. ‘stencilists of frivolity’) and if you get only one hit – you’ve found a googlewhack. The point is the exclamation at finding semantically unrelated words in the same passage on only one particular site.
A couple of years ago a chap called Dave Gorman did a silly thing in emailing the people who owned the websites on which he found his googlewhacks and then travelling to actually visit said owners around the world. He was trying to visit so many of them before his 30th birthday or he risked losing a drunken bet with his friends. He turned the story into the basis for a comedy tour and book.
Meanwhile, Google are prepared to cooperate with the Chinese government in offering self-censorship of blogs and so forth, whilst refusing to allow the US government access to data on user searches.
Which is bad
Which is good