Talk:Googlewhack

Citations

The box above the article says that it does not have any citations, but now there are seven. Maybe it's time to take the box away (or at least reword it)? --Strangeguitars (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we just remove the box altogether now? Walkerma (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I definitely think this article is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I'm not really sure how evident that is from the current state of the article, however. It needs to be substantially overhauled, with a cited reference or two to third-party publications talking about Googlewhacks (magazine or newspaper articles, perhaps?)

-Dave314159 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will soon add a reference to a peer-review publication using googlewhacks, I think this should be sufficient.
--128.197.81.26 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I also believe this is a notable concept. I saw this term used in a Guardian article today, and I see that the page got 6533 hits last month - a very impressive number! Walkerma (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Googlewhack Paradox:

Are the following relevant to this article? If so, someone should add them in. 128.197.81.26 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If somebody publishes a Googlewhack combination on a webpage that Google searches through, it ceases to be a Googlewhack.

---

Now google.com has stopped using dictionary.com, where does this leave googlewhacks? 16:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikify

This article needs wikification, mainly in the areas of HTML-to-wiki conversion and substitution of Wikipedia links in place of external links in running text, whenever possible. I started to do this, but gave up when I saw how much work was involved. I might be back someday, but if someone else can do this, I'd appreciate it. - dcljr (talk) 05:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the wikisource looks better now so I've removed my wikify request. Someone else can add {{cleanup-tone}} or similar if they want... - dcljr (talk) 1 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

Should the F-word be displayed?

Is it necessary to show the "F word" in its entirety, or would it be be more appropriate to censor some of the word? I don't see the relevence the word has to a googlewhack, and therefore it shouldn't affect the quality of the article to censor it.

Btw, a googlewhack where one word is the so-called "F word" or "sex" would deserve some cred, indeed. 惑乱 分からん 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is not to censor words (or really anything). Either spell it out in its entirety or don't use it at all. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:Profanity: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." - I'm not sure we even need the "terms rarely used" section, though, by definition. --McGeddon 09:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

F word in fubawl

I've changed screwed to f***ed in this definition simply because screwed is used to define an acronym with the letter F to start - it just doesn't make sense.

Jma2133 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-Whack

There's a definition of Wiki-Whack at the end of the article. I created a Wiki-whack article since none existed. However, I'm now beginning to doubt whether the thing exists. Is it just a made up in school one day? Peter Harriman 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki-whack article has been deleted (quite rightly, I think). So I have removed the paragraph describing it in this article. Peter Harriman 08:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

TCF

If I wanted to get a Googlewhack with the letter T, C and F in it, I was thinking about how would be the best way to get one. Perhaps, it is all about using an article like this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1875603,00.html - and trying to answer the question.

It is worth a shot.

Choco

i found this googlewhack: unicycular bottom. Is unicycular a real word? Jedi feline 10:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo in article

The article features both the words Googlewhackblattaptomas and Googlewhackblattapotomas once each. Presumably, one of these is a mistake. Somebody want to correct whichever one is wrong? Capedia 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Pseudogooglewhacks

Is there a suitable term for "topics which record hundreds of hits - the articles turning out to be merely clones of each other"? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Googlewhackblatt found!

I decided to do something related to that one in the article. Try... um... reffudmub backwards. Don't type it forwards, I want it to stay as a whackblatt... 77.101.29.242 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's not Googlewhackblatt. It retuns zero results. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just typed in the first word I could think of, and it turned out to be a Googlewhackblatt. I can't believe my eyes. Catrambi (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have one too, kabloinjadaboom (yes, I know it is forwards). Wait a few days and that will be a Googlewhackblatt.Dalek9 (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all GWBs are nonsense words 'Agendums', the plain Englis alternative to 'agenda' as a plural of 'agendum', an item on a list, is a googlewhackblat... at least it was. The Yowser (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Irony

This sentence is ironic: "Due to the attention brought to these searches by the book, very few still actually work." In fact, due to the fact that those searches are listed in this article, none of them still actually work! I just found my first googlewhack by accident, but it's my secret ^.^ Gyro Copter (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

short phrases

Is there a concept/word for a phrase longer than two words, or a short sentence, which only brings up one hit? From what I see here a googlewhack is by definition only two words. Fitfatfighter (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

The intro doesn't explain correctly. Any search of two words on Google is very very legitimate without conditions. Any search of two words that exist in a dictionary, f.ex. word 1. rafinükön (Volapük for "(to) purify") and word 2. förstärkningsresurser (Swedish for "reinforcement resources") is very legitimate by social conventions in the rural area in the district of Leiria in Portugal, when I'm pressing on the "Search" button at my computer. The intro should explain:

1. is it when searching "the net" or when searching for images or ...
2. what does the "search for two words" mean: are they searched one by one, giving the same result, or are they entered both side by side in the text entry box and then the "Search" button pressed?
3. who are actually doing the "whack" part? The google searchers (unlikely), or the web authors of a site, doing something fishy that affects the Google robots advertly?
4. why are the Googlewhacks made? In order to make a site get more hits than it should, or in order to produce Google hits that has no relevance for the searcher?
5. in what way is the Googlewhack legitimate or not? By culture claiming that "thou shallst not bear false witness before your neighbor" or by law?

... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 13:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I got it quite wrong. Googlewhack is a contest (or a kind of contest) of finding a set of exactly two words, both must be in one dictionary (or two??), that when searched for simultaneously by a google search-the-net, gives exactly one hit, no less no more. The "legitimacy" refers to which pairs are valid for the contest, and which pairs to be rejected, and possible other rules. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 13:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Obsolescence

The article should be updated to reflect the fact that these queries are not possible anymore. I remember the day very well when a Google-query consisting of nothing but suppressions ("... -sex -pdf -...") suddenly returned a result instead of "nothing found". Unfortunately I didn't write down the exact date, but I've looked for a decent search engine as useful as the old Google, or AltaVista before that, ever since. --BjKa (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I just tried a query with nothing but suppressions and it properly returned no results. Powers ^T 21:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleaner Girl Bug

What is it? The article doesn't explain anything about it and there are no links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.235.238.109 (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Two points

1. There is no good reason to capitalize "googlewhack".

2. Regardless of the original definition, the word "googlewhack" very quickly took on the broader definition that did not require the search string to be just two words, but instead put no limitation on the search string. That is how the word came to be used, so Wikipedia should not impose its own preference on the world but rather describe the word as it is used. 2601:200:C000:1A0:805F:8A1E:6748:A708 (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If a phrase turns up two hits, one of which is an exact copy of the other, is it disqualified from being a googlewhack? Does it matter if the copy was authorized? Dstar3k (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. Sorry.

Needs Citation for Offline date

There is conflicting evidence as to when the website went offline. The wikiarticle says the website went offline in November 2009, but Archive.org has the website archived up until September 7, 2017 before the website went defunct. The copywrite at the bottom goes until 2009. Maybe it's best to describe these as two events: Last update to website and defunct date. Relspas (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)