Tuesday
(0)Fire up Google and type in "chav stakhanovites"... and you get us!
Even on an internet full of strangeness, that's an odd thing to type into google.
Posted by Julian Morrison at January 24, 2006 04:07 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm afraid it doesn't count as a Googlewhack as it breaks rule 1:
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, so see the FAQ :-)
Posted by The Pedant-General at January 24, 2006 04:13 PM
gaah:
Firefox Fumbled the link:
http://www.googlewhack.com/rules.htm
Verity will never read my comments again....
Posted by The Pedant-General at January 24, 2006 04:17 PM
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!
Posted by James Waterton at January 24, 2006 04:27 PM
Hey cut me some slack.
At least I'm using Firefox...
Posted by The Pedant-General at January 24, 2006 04:33 PM
I have no idea what "Google's view of this dictionary" means.
Hey cut me some slack.
Surely you jest!
Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 24, 2006 04:42 PM
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
Posted by The Pedant-General at January 24, 2006 04:52 PM
The Pedant-General - Serves you right for using Firefox. Firefox buggers everything up.
Julian Morrison - That was a funny comment.
Posted by Verity at January 24, 2006 04:56 PM
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'?
Posted by XWL at January 24, 2006 05:43 PM
Did anyone else try XWL's 'googlewhacks' and get googlejack?!
Posted by mike at January 25, 2006 08:48 AM
What the bloody hell is a Googlewhack? And why are they good/interesting/desirable?
Posted by James Waterton at January 25, 2006 08:59 AM
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.
Posted by mike at January 25, 2006 09:44 AM
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.
Posted by mike at January 25, 2006 09:55 AM
Meanwhile, Google are prepared to cooperate with the Chinese government in offering self-censorship of blogs and so forth
Which is bad
...whilst refusing to allow the US government access to data on user searches
Which is good
Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 25, 2006 03:57 PM
