Googlewhacking: The Search for 'The One'  UnBlinking

2002-03-13 13:36 UTC  Some writers recently have suggested that Googlewhacking may affect Google's ordinary search results. That's extremely unlikely. The few dozen whacks on this page do appear in the Google database; they arrived there before the craze was under way. So if you're often searching for 'hellkite' or 'kyphosis,' you may find a few more results, for which we apologize :-)

However, Google does not index The Whack Stack at Googlewhack. Those 35,000 confirmed whacks are not contributing to the Google database, nor will they influence your results there. Enjoy!

Sorry; we may be starting something here.

This distraction crossed my desk, so I coined a richly meaningful name: Googlewhacking.

Your goal: find that elusive query (two words - no quote marks) with a single, solitary result!

In case you're punningly challenged:
  • to whack on... the big iron over at Google.
  • to whack off... search results, one by one, toward zero.
  • to have nothing better to do than... OK, well, whatever.
  • to X-whack... where X = [favorite search engine], as in "bushwhack":
        ("To make one's way through thick woods by cutting away bushes and branches.")
  • More informally, "Man, that is whack!"
2002-02-04 18:30 UTC  Several people have e-mailed me claiming to have invented the idea of searching for one result. (Oddly, however, no one has claimed they invented 'Looking up words in a dictionary' :-) Here's a hint, folks: some of the decaffeinated brands have all the flavor of the real thing!

Many people - myself included - have done such searches for years. It's a natural thing for curious people to do. I just named it "Googlewhacking" (better than the Greek approximation, 'hapax legomenon').
Say... are your whacks in the Googlewhack Weekly Whack?

You're welcome to record a pure Googlewhack, which will appear in The Whack Stack. Part of the challenge: don't use quote marks within your query! Quotes tell Google to find those words immediately adjacent - and that's just too easy! As you whack, please respect these simple guidelines:

1. Googlefactors must exist in this dictionary. It's so easy to confirm: Google does the work! In the blue bar atop your Google results, accepted terms are linked to, and so appear 'underlined.' No line, no link = Googlejack! (As in, You've got jack! :-)

2. Google also is the arbiter of a whack's uniqueness. Look to the right end of the blue bar atop your Google results. If you see "Results 1 - 1 of (any number),' you found exactly one hit = Googlewhack!

3. Google shows you an excerpt of the page you whacked. Look at that text. If it's merely a list of words, No Whack For You!

If your Googlefactors aren't recognized by, you still can record your whack at QuickTopic. Please don't make up goofy Googlefactors; some other whacker will certainly test your submittal, then use QuickTopic to expose your treachery! :-)
Seriously: Do not offer links to tools that automate Googlewhacking. I consider it unsportsmanlike; Google may consider it illegal. Posts on that thread will be removed.
You may mail comments or truly exceptional multifaceted whacks to UnBlinking. Patience, please, but I plan to post them all.

The truly interesting parts:

2002-01-09 00:30 UTC Ironies of participation.
2002-01-25 19:30 UTC Oh, those crazy Sumerians!
2002-01-27 23:30 UTC The Wackiest Whackers Whacks Poetic!
2002-01-28 19:30 UTC The Dixon/Greeble Heisenwhack Principle.

The parts only a blogger could love:

2002-01-08 22:30 UTC What was I thinking? (The boring history... blah, blah, blah.)
2002-01-11 13:00 UTC And so, it begins. (The boring history continues...)
2002-01-23 20:30 UTC What hath Google wrought? (Are we bored yet?)
2002-01-24 01:30 UTC How low can you go? (You see the pattern here...)

 Subject:  Googlewhacking
    Date:  Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:37:34 -0500
    From:  Gary Stock
      To:  Brooks Talley
      CC:  Glen McCready, Christopher Small, Nev Dull

  One or all of you wrote:
 > I've gotten addicted to looking for combinations of common words
 > which have the lowest incidence of appearance on web pages, as 
 > indexed by google.  So far, I have yet to find a set of two 
 > common english words which do not appear together on
 > any web pages..."
   Regarding your habit of googlewhacking (nice triple entendre, eh?):
         1:      flatness strawberries magnification
         1:      jeweler parkways pathways
         1:      florists parkways practiced


 I'd nominate some categories, along with the elusive pure doublewhack:
         triplewhack with words all the same length;
         multiwhack beginning with sequential letters 
            (1: applet badger catchy dabble)...
Not fair to acknowledge word lists - too easy to spoof!
Note the marvelous ironies of participation:

First, when I load this (2002-01-08), it will be the only page on the web containing any of these words:
  • googlewhack
  • triplewhack
  • multiwhack
  • searchwhack
But, if one is echoed elsewhere online, and Google notices, the word will cease to qualify as uniwhack :-)

Second, the tuplewhacks above (for example, 'jeweler parkways pathways') qualify at this moment: they have only one Google result. However, as soon as Googlebot sees this page, those tuples will no longer qualify! Google will report two instances: the original, and this report of it. Whaddya gonna call that?

Selfwhack-deprivation? Un-interwhacking? De-uniwhackized?

Scrooge McDuck's First Rule of Self Referential Contrariness: Whack whack whack whack...?

As UnBlinking luck would have it, doublewhack actually is a uniwhack. It appears in exactly one place! A writer named Bruce Ario used it in another writing - but Bruce deserves extra credit for The Dog in Heaven:

Confronting the contradictions in the Bible
Was quite a proposition
For me - a wannabe Christian.

I didn't like to see
Anything left out of something
So beautiful.

I'm referring to Revelations.
I was okay with leaving out
Murderers, idolaters, even the sexually immoral,

But somehow I just couldn't agree with leaving out the dogs.

As usual, an UnBlinking tour of the internet - no matter how odd the first step - winds up somewhere wonderful. Enjoy!

2002-01-11 13:00 UTC   And so, it begins.

David "JOHOwhacker" Weinberger's Journal qualifies as the first daypopwhack of the term "googlewhack." (Whaddya want from me? I do searchy stuff for a living!) That is, the great engine over at DayPop, finds 'googlewhacking' in Dave's blog, and nowhere else.

The first submission demonstrates an essential lesson in searching: results change. For freaky reasons. Here's the effort from the Googlewhackily-named Cinnamon Brunmeir:
I heard about your site thru a friend (who runs & after
3 tries, found a Googlewhack: schadenfreude primp
While schadenfreude is German in origin, it IS in 
& is in common usage in America. :)
I love the idea. Nice job.
Cinnamon Brunmier 
Sr. Producer
< kpe > Los Angeles 
[Please spend a moment juxtaposing 'whack' and '' Say it aloud. Faster. Again. Wasn't that fun? ]

However, I am unable to confirm this Googlewhack! Google returns zero results at this time (2002-01-11 13:00 UTC). Your mileage may vary.

Here is your search lesson: with nigh unto 12,000 servers running in tandem, the Google server farm is intended to perform well even when missing a box here or there. Perhaps the schadenfreude box is unwell. We might expect to see this result return in a matter of hours.

Cinnamon: I am privately pleased at your misfortune; perhaps your next attempt will show more meticulous attention to detail :-)

2002-01-11 22:30 UTC   Please read instructions before use! Your goal is to find one result!

Cinnamon writes back to point out a slight misinterpretation.

hmmm...I think part of it may have been my misunderstanding of the game.
The original posting quotes:

  > So far, I have yet to find a set of two common english words
  > which do not appear together on any web pages...
I now see that it must have ONE incidence in order to be
considered a whack.  I will continue my quest.  I am not so easily denied.
Then, five minutes later, Cinn writes yet again - including a screen shot - of a searchwhack success: "schadenfreude carburetor." Yes, it works, pointing us to the one and only Blastitude Number Five, which contains a great deal of whackful titles such as, "Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung." (The page is dreadfully slow to load in Netscape, but fine elsewise.)
One-paragraph HTML lesson for the week! Hey, Blastitude: drop that crazy white_dot.gif as a background! It's one pixel by one pixel, so Netscape has to render - quick guess - four hundred thousand copies of it every time the browser scrolls. (Sure, it loads quickly in MSIE - but so do most viruses :-) At least create a larger graphic of 4 x 100 pixels, maybe 4 x 1000. Better yet, use the language as intended, setting table color with <table bgcolor= "#ffffff"> - save a billion CPU cycles, worldwide! Stay calm; I'm going easy on you. I didn't mention that the spec doesn't even allow setting backgrounds within a <TR> :-)
Next, I heard from Jeneane Sessum (more namewhacking material) who wrote:
i started with "unlivable sextet," which gave me only 1 search
result (beginner's luck), but succeeded when I googlewhacked
"unlivable micrometer." A theory: googlewhacking may wind up 
producing some pretty cool band names.

thanks for the fun!
Actually, you won on the first pair! One hit is the goal! (And, I suspect 'sextet' makes for a better band name than micrometer :-)

2002-01-23 20:30 UTC   What hath Google wrought?

Well, such things take on a life of their own; Googlewhacking is living large. It appears that David Weinberger has been on the receiving end of as much mail as UnBlinking. Other folks have jumped in, including Kirsty Darbyshire, Chris Pirillo, Shelley Powers, and Sharon O'Neill. We mustn't forget:
The JOHO reporting even caught the fancy of Ed Yourdon, whose name you really ought to recognize. Seems we're all susceptible.

Attention has been lax (and I don't mean the airport :-) regarding which words may qualify as a googlefactor. For the purist, googlefactors must exist here. This is easy to confirm: Google does the work! Look at the top line of your Google results page. Known words are linked to, and so appear 'underlined.' No line, no link = no score! This settles the proper noun debate, resolves cross-language issues, corrects for misspelling, and speeds up verification. (For the truly devout whacker, it also precludes the use of plurals and some other marginal forms.)

That dictionary lookup link can confirm a googlefactor, but may not reliably deny one. For example, a recent googlewhack header did not provide the dictionary link to 'linux,' although the word is legitimate. A few moments later, the link was present. Why?

We're not sure. Google's servers may balance resource allocation; perhaps they were busy at that instant doing core queries or indexing, rather than word definition lookups. Or, it may be a Googliscious service quality decision: "If the query results are complete before the dictionary lookup, don't delay even a few more milliseconds just to produce that nonessential link."

Another question involves counting multiple sub-pages from one site. Again, Google is the final arbiter, telling us definitively how many unique elements it has divined (then incidentally, whether there are other parallel matches). See the rightmost end of the blue header bar. Consider 'Results 1 through N,' where you want N to be exactly one:
   "Results 1 - 5 of 9" : you found five hits. 
   "Results 1 - 2 of 3" : you found two hits.
   "Results 1 - 1 of 3' : you found one hit; Googlewhack!
A few whack-y scoring theories have emerged (in an apparent attempt to drive average folks crazy while Googlewhacking :-) UnBlinking seeks to remind everyone that searching can be fun, and that ordinary folks can find truly interesting stuff - differential calculus not required!

I'm working up some googlerulez for the merely mildly mathematical. Watch this space.

BTW, my personal best to date is microsoft crenelation. Using one of the simpler scoring systems making the rounds (search Google for each word, individually, then multiply the result tallies), it lands at 27,000,000 x 630 = 17,010,000,000. This juxtaposition of commercial and rather obscure words is hardly inspirational, but it is a strict whack.

So, to appeal more to the (Music) Man on the Street (right-of-way) - if you'll excuse pluralization - easements trombones whacks 336,000 x 84,800 = 28,492,800,000. OK, you go.

2002-01-24 01:30 UTC   How low can you go?

Just in:
  • Chris Duguid contributes: carmelized contagion (6,600 x 128,000 = 844,400,000)
  • Julie Duguid contributes: cartographer hairballs (56,100 x 12,200 = 684,420,000)
Neither would stand a chance against the multigig superwhacks noted above. However, they're great whacks, since the components are relatively well known, but mutually exclusive in their appearances. The conjured images are very visual - even tactile.

As time passes, I see greater sense in seeking a 'lowest' score. Consider any two words with very little presence online. To make an obvious example, I'll use very uncommon words: carminative (with 159 results) and callipygian (with 958 results). Look 'em up; you'll be glad you did.

Carminative and callipygian do appear together ("Results 1 - 8 of about 18") - but all eight hits are 'difficult word' dictionaries. Excluding word lists and dictionaries, as we must, how likely is it for these two words to appear on the same page? If they did, the whack would score a mere (159 x 958 = 152,322). But, wouldn't that page be a real gem?

To assure our sanity, Google recognizes both those words with a live link to definitions. Otherwise, we'd all wind up whacking obscure medical and botanical sources...

2002-01-28 13:00 UTC   Googlewhackers around the world now have sent me several hundred proposals - and only a few of these folks even mention a 'score.' This confirms the obvious: finding is fun; scoring is competitive. UnBlinking sez: not everything has to be competitive!

Case in point: Chris and Julie, above. Is 'carmelized contagion' (844,400,000) better than 'cartographer hairballs" (684,420,000)? Is it more creative? Did it take longer to find? Is it more poetic? What the hell is wrong with it just being a Googlewhack? Is Chris better than Julie?

I sent the following out to the first hundred whackers or so:
Thanks to the 99% of you who _are_ whacking in the spirit!

Later, I may post a searing rant against sociopathic 
competitiveness and compulsive one-upsmanship, the 
concomitant dot-com bust and inevitable collapse of 
western civilization... but for now, remember:  
If it's not fun, it's not whackworthy! :-)

OK, if you absolutely _MUST_ have 'a score' to keep breathing:

   Pure googlewhack = 1
   Learn something  = 1
   Laugh even more  = 1
                      3  = maximum possible score!

See?  You may already be a winner!

2002-01-24 19:30 UTC   Oh, those crazy Sumerians!

Here are a few recent whacks that pass the Google test - and UB has added a twisty twist to enhance the pleasure.
Dave Collins hellkite flamingo What do you get when you cross a Stymphalian Bird with the Energizer Bunny?
Ian Wallace capricious pulper What is Gale Norton's nickname among spotted owls?
Dane Carlson fringe willowing phenomenon What happens when an emergent marsh begins to dry out? (Three words... but quite lyric.)
Meryl Evans octopi jujitsu What's the only way to defeat both Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan at once? (Google suggests 'octopus,' but acknowledges 'octopi' with a link.)
  channelized telepathic What does Dionne Warwick look for on your resume? (OK Meryl, back to work :-)
Andrew Falconer kyphosis lightbulb What comes on when you suddenly realize your spine is crooked?
Chris Pirillo vigilantes jerkiness What made Wyatt Earp most nervous? UB pinch hitting: Chris came so close without realizing it - by naming a blog entry 'Jerkwad Vigilantes' - that I refined the whack on his behalf.
Julie Sorrell cuneiform meatspace What did the Sumerians see in those pictographs? (JS sez: I have just frittered away my entire lunchtime at work, but finally found one... Now I must try and get back to work, and not succumb to trying to find more Googlewhacks!)
Tim 'Manic' Ireland eponymic linux What does Linus Torvalds consider his greatest achievement?
Chuck Luciano phytoremediation einsteinium Ten thousand years from now, what will be the primary product of Rocky Flats?
Jeff Boes nihilistic agorophobia What do you call the fear that 'you may disappear if you leave your house'? (Well, it's a word list... but in Turkish!)
  penumbra possibilities bewilder How do people feel when an eclipse begins? (Jeff: look what you started here.)
Swish Cottage carburettor logotype What's the name of the universal symbol for 'explosive spark'? ( approves the uncommon spelling. That's why we let Google decide!)
  quintuplet gorgonzola What do they put on a five-cheese pizza in northern Italy?
OK. Are we having fun yet?

2002-01-27 23:30 UTC   The Wackiest Whackers Whacks Poetic!

People, people, calm yourselves! I'm not finished with definitions, but here's a work in progress.
Cory Doctorowjerkwater plastiqueWhat do you get when you add a pound of sawdust to a gallon of gasoline?
Claire Kilnerorchestrator bamboozlingWhat is the greatest risk to the Boston Philharmonic?
Andy Chenmetronome dewpointAt what temperature does a clock begin to sweat?
Gary Turnerplectrum irradiationWhat is the best way to sterilize a banjo player's hands?
Dane CarlsonLotsa triplewhacks... 
Meryl Yourishshinto defenestrationMeryl hints, "What happens when the vow of silence becomes too difficult to bear?"
djpekoe practicumWhere does one learn the art of making great tea?
djpaparazzo bicuspiddj closes with a compelling question: "why does this thing get so many comments and stuff like afghan women only get two? is this a quality quantity thing? weird."
zaggzugzwang belshazzarWhat was Daniel's warning to the last king of Babylon?
zaggdrachma zugzwangHow do Greeks view the need to convert cash to Euros?
zaggzugzwang hydraulicsOK, zagg, there are probably a lot more :-)
nedloggnocchi opticianWho should you visit if your dumplings just don't look right?
Cecily Ordoynesaluki regicideWhat finally happened to the King of Dog Racing?
Elise Tomekbanana circumcisionWhat is the most extreme form of...Doh! Googlethud! It whacks only as a two-word search - "banana circumcision" - with quotes. Fun, but... denied! No whack for you! :-)
Moss Collumhirsute thomismWhat philosophy evolved during Aquinas' "Rogaine" period?
Scott McMillancosmological tollboothWhat's on the cover of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?
Tim Merrittjesuitical cauliflowerWhat is the Pope's favorite vegetable?
Aprilascetic poriferaWhat is the term for a very stiff sponge?
Aprilmisogynist nematodaWhich parasite infects only males of a species?
Ben Dyerpocahontas thumbscrewWhat did the Powhatans wish on John Smith?
Laura Kiernanflummoxed tangeloWhat do you get when you mix a grapefruit and an orange together really fast?
Merlin Mannfancy parallax bonesetterWhat do you call an orthopedist who always lines up the radius and ulna perfectly?
Merlin Mannheraclitean gonorrheaWhich venereal disease is least predictable and most troublesome?
Merlin Mannvegan cowcatcherWhat's on the front of the Rutabaga Railway's "Lettuce Locomotive"?
Merlin Manncredenza parthenogenesisHow was the footstool invented?
Julie Martingoaltending taupeWhat color do soccer players wear to reduce their visibility to opponents?
William Tychonievichstyracosaurus boobsWhat is the working title for the next Jurassic Park film?
Andrew Raffsousaphone wasabiWhat do oriental tuba players love most to eat?
hug-n-kisssequacious arthropodWhat do you call a spider that just won't stop following you?
hug-n-kisssequacious fobWhat can you always expect to see when your pocketwatch runs too fast?
hug-n-kissnonagenarian biathlonWhat does a gerontologist call the walk from the parking lot to the office, and back?
Cobra77silverfish showstopperHow does legend refer to the "Raid on the Bristletail Ball"?
davebugrigamarole hullaballooIn private, how do U.S. Senators refer to Congressional deliberations?
davebugformaldehyde explicatorWhich speaker do morticians most look forward to at a symposium?
- m - blithering clopsWhat is the sound of one exceedingly drunken hand clapping?
davebugmaladroit wheezerWhat would you call a person who coughs directly in your face?
glamwreckobsequious plumeriaName a particularly irritating species of tropical foliage.
Justin Masonbearnaise destructorWhat is the literal English translation of the Japanese show title, 'Iron Chef'?
David Gagneovulating kleptomaniacWho was convicted of the Great Sperm Bank Robbery?
Holgerwaffenöl zahnschmerzenAuf Deutsch kennen sie?
Alltoocozypseudonymous cockatielWho was the primary author of the 2002 "State of the Union Address"?
Lynda Hicksnecrophiliac cockatiel...obviously the same bird who wrote that address.
Sammiasmic frenulum...obviously the technical term for that same bird's hyoid disorder.
Chuck Taggartcockatiel colonoscopy...what Tom Daschle was picturing during the entire State of the Union Address.
Chuck Taggartmacaw colonoscopy...I think you get the idea!
David Farrebibulous's as if every whack refers to that entire speech!!
Ericdogshit chalupaWhat does Gidget, the Taco Bell Dog, want to serve at the 2002 FIFA World Cup?
Carrie Richmondepiscopalian gamelansName the warmup band for "The Archbishops' 2001 "Bang the Gong" tour of Indonesia.
Matthew Kingstonnucleotide ripienoWhat is the favorite phosphoric confection of genetic engineers?
Jubileecarnivore homileticsHow did most privacy experts describe FBI lobbying in support of the Homeland Security Act?
Casey Castonviridian acetaminophenWhat kind of placebo was given to test subjects during the Viagra clinical trials?
Richard Witmerinterregnum diazepamWhat helps maintain calm after the king's death?
Rich Millercomparative unicyclistRich actually admits, "Here's the progression I followed:
cerulean adhesion - 318
pique dimple - 161
wristwatch intestine - 153
bight pique - 134
silverware toothache - 122
crawling handgrip - 91
gauche carbonation - 38
writhe paperclip - 20
polypropylene obfuscation - 8
defibrillation concertina - 7
referential tintinnabulation - 6
comparative unicyclist - 1!
I have triumphed! I rock! I have defeated the synthetic test!"
Jonathon Delacourshinto pusillanimityIn Japanese, what words describe the fear of admitting to ancestral religious beliefs?
Jennifer Kitchengoogol lactateWhat builds up in the muscles of athletes who run the 10100 yard dash?
Ian Loftusbuckminsterfullerene sundaeWhat was the first self-supporting, geometrically stable dessert?
Glenn Davisvulva skullduggeryWhat was the actual title of the acclaimed porn classic commonly known as "Deep Throat"?
Glenn Davisfrumpish honorific
Word List!
In interviews about his real-life tryst with Julie Andrews, how did costumier Tony Walton describe the 'Mary Poppins" look he created?
Glenn Davismonoclonal braggadocioGenetically speaking, what is the common trait among all the people who claim to have 'invented' Googlewhacking?
Glenn Davisflabbergasting pseudopodWhat was Leeuwenhoek's utterance the first time he saw an amoeba move under its own power?
Glenn Davisramify freakishly
Word List!
What did Glenn Davis never foresee whacking would do to his life? Glenn reports, "Thank you for wasting many hours of my precious time!! Bastard!! ;-D"
Judah McCauleyyeti nuggets spelunkingName the sport that involves searching for the dessicated offal of rare species in underground caves.
Liz Traceyweltschmerz sterilized What describes a person who has responsibly foregone childbearing in order to reduce the impact of human society on other species?
Liz Traceypumpkin sororicideWhen the Prince of Squash coveted the throne, what did the Princess of Cucurbits fear most?
Reginald Aubrytriskelion flambeOn Stardate 3211.7, what was Kirk's only alternative to seducing Angelique Pettyjohn's 'Shauna'? (As if he needed motivation!)
Lyle B. Højbjerg-Clarkeinternet vennationWhat technological breakthrough could make the most profitable business ever?
Mark Colvinagapanthus eggbeaterWhat kitchen implement has the same bluish color as a Nile lily?
Andrew Jordanyemenite perambulatorAccording to El-Al Airlines' security protocol, what single object should be subject to the greatest scrutiny?
Byron Busseyfugacious carburetorSez Byron, "What do you get when you chintz on car parts?"
David Johnstonskink vacillationHow did USFWS respond when asked to extend ESA protection to Neoseps reynoldsi?
David Shawchthonic flocculationBeyond the undying gratitude of humanity, what would you get by sucking the air out of 1,000 lawyers then pumping it into a very deep hole? (Lucky! David got a whack in one!)
Earle Martinhydroxylated marmaladeWhat euphemistic term did General Electric propose to describe the fruity-smelling toxic sediments it dumped in the Hudson River?
Adam Hibbertlove googlewhackOops! That whack is suddenly very popular!
Julie Frizzelloctopi thalassophobia What psychological term describes the fear complex triggered by reading Jules Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"?
Jilles Ondenbeuvingthaught breadcrumbInteresting: "thaught" is a valid googlefactor, but the whack actually found a misspelling of "thought."! Hmmm...
Holden Richardseftsoon ciderHolden says, "When one apple is not enough!"
Peter Chenggoogolplex polyglotWhen deciding upon a name for the Universal Translator, what proposed name did Star Fleet reject as "A bit too Vulcan"?
Dave Rutledgesommelier infarctionWhat's the phrase you least want to hear whispered at the next table while you're tasting a slightly musty, rather corky Cabernet?
Wayne Baisleyfruitcake beseechmentPlease, please, please don't make us anything for Christmas!
Wayne Baisleyexpectorate lederhosenWes Craven's script for "Best of the Brothers Grimm" called for "The Giant" to do one thing to which the studio would not agree. What was it?
Wayne Baisleycrapulent porkerAccording to "The Journal of Farm Veterinary Medicine," what is the least common diagnosis made by pig health specialists?
Ted Stevkochiaroscuro hasenpfefferWhat artistic style dominates the dining room at the world-famous "Le Petit Civet" in Paris?
Jason Prontunctuous lepton
Word List!
Jason: "A subatomic particle of ill repute."
Dave Millermagnetoelectrodynamic shaveDave wonders, "What does a plasma razor give you?"
Christopher Kserenades supporting heliumThough arguably apropos, what was the most controversial component of memorials for victims of the Hindenberg crash?
Heidi Carpenterapartheid transcriptionistOn the nomination form for a Pulitzer Prize, under the topic "Human Rights Reporting," what category follows 'abuse photographer' and 'violence videographer"?
Tom Beattiemordant kebobHow does the menu at 'The Hurtin' Hot House' describe its signature dish, "Burning Beef on a Scalding Skewer"?
Andrea Kremerfunicular swizzleWhat proposed Gatorade flavor earned the condemnation of both the Church of Latter Day Saints and the International Olympic Committee?

2002-01-28 19:30 UTC   The Dixon/Greeble Heisenwhack Principle

What to call a self-immolating Googlewhack (one that ceases to be unique after Google spiders a site where the whack is reported)? Kudos to Ray Dixon (of the Greeble domain) for coining the excellent term "Heisenwhack." He based the term loosely on the jargon entry for HeisenBUG.

Paralleling Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, clearly the observer (of a Googlewhack) alters the reality being observed (of a Googlewhack). Heisenberg himself might observe (...get it?), or perhaps Bohr would note, one benefit to web surfers: when measuring Heisenwhack Phenomena, timelines may be expressed in hours or days, rather than femtoseconds or attoseconds.

As a verb, one may 'Heisenwhack' a unique result by displaying it for Google to find (thereby spawning a second result). The noun 'Heisenwhack' refers to the page or citation that causes such dilution.

The Heisenwhack Compensator (for all you Trekkers :-) is easy to use. To find pages that contain your word pair, while excluding other pages that mention this topic, add '-googlewhack' to your query. Google will exclude pages containing that 'subtracted' term from your results.

Privacy Policy   -   Site Copyright © 1995-2009 by Gary Stock. Commercial use prohibited.
May be excerpted, mailed, posted, or linked for non-commercial purposes.