Talk:Googlewhack

The Googlewhack Paradox:

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)

Got one! Finely! I read this article and I was determined to find one, and after 45 minute, here's one: Disodium Rubberneck whorl sink Ice Ardor 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whorl sink Ice Ardor 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:-(

I once had one – "Superior Magikarp." It was originally used in an article about Pokemon trading cards, but since I named my new computer that (part of an old inside joke) it's been lost. Oh well.

Please prevent the Googlewhack article from being indexed by blocking it in robots.txt

Please prevent the Googlewhack article from being indexed by blocking it in robots.txt, otherwise as this page is indexed the Googlewhacks listed will become obsolete. Tell mirrors to do this as well. -- Yuhong 14:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful Googlewhacking Attempt

My attempt at googlewhacking using teen and sex was unsucessful. XM 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, there. If it makes you feel better, I've never been able to get these two terms to googlewhack either, and I've tried plenty of times.

Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Devilwhack

I put in the words "monotheistic amputee" and got exactly 666 results. Creepy. - Phenomenon X, 31 August 2006

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)[reply]

I Got One!!

metropolis antidisestblishmentarianism worked for me. I'm pretty sure I botched the longest word in the english language, but so did the one website I found!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheLedBalloon (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, the properly-spelt search for metropolis antidisestablishmentarianism gives over 500 results, and since a Googlewhack requires dictionary-recognized words, I regret to inform you that you have not been successful in your quest. 68.162.28.80 03:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Has anyone noticed that there are bastards who have put up websites that prevent googlewhacking?

For instance, my search on "photofission lugubrious" returned 8 results, all of which were literally thousands of words printed on a single HTML page without any formatting. What douches. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAH! Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious defragmentation. Bingo. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)