This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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?)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 13:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)