The rules of Googlewhack are relatively easy. 1- Run a search on any two words on Google who's result is 1 entry. 2- The words must be real -- they need to be found here 3- The resulting page can't just be a random listing of words. Check out my googlewhack (which... after I post it here, might not be a googlewhack any more: cartoonish + casaba resulted in this ONE page: The Boulder Weekly --- check out the article on ZDnet
I've gotten married in the past year, and googlewhacking. Neither is easy. It took me splenectomy + sycamore to get down to one link. Googlewhacking is fun, it forces you to think of words whose ideas are opposite one another--but not too much--on some kind of conceptual color wheel. Art
posted 17 years ago
OK, this googlewhacking is turning out to be seriously addictive. More news from the field: the combination of medical events and plant species seems to be the way to go for me: I've also discovered kleptomania and ficus's single link. Not to introduce philosophical overtones into this little avocation, but assuming that Google has its Web crawlers tuned to Java Ranch, then our publishing of googlewhacked pairs means someday they will no longer be googlewhacked pairs. Well, there's always link rot. Art
Originally posted by Howard Ralston: I finally hit with: tomfoolery scatalogical. It's easy to determine my frame of mind while playing this game today.
Sorry to kill your day... but you've been NEGGED -- scatalogical is not a word in dictionary.com -- scatological is.... but that with tomfoolery, that doesn't make a googlewhack --- --and might I just say, the only reason I checked was 'cause I had no idea what scatology was the study of... ahhhh I feel enlightened now. Here's a GoogleWhack for ya --> internationalize + scatological gave this one entry. [ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Jessica (Bradley) Sant ]
I was so close with chromatin scatological It came back with 2. I can't get lucky, but with a word like scatological, it might be easier. I have found using this word I can get 0 responses, but not just 1 Mark