Not sure if this is how it works but on Google.com
1. Nano: 493,000
2. Swahili: 214,000
=105,502,000,000
Is this valid?
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 9:17,
archived)
1. Nano: 493,000
2. Swahili: 214,000
=105,502,000,000
Is this valid?
You've got to have only a single result returned by Google...
That's the hard bit.
(BTW, why does my google result pages not list the number of hits for each word?)
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 9:24,
archived)
That's the hard bit.
(BTW, why does my google result pages not list the number of hits for each word?)
What do you mean by a "single result" returned by yahoo.
As in entering into the search field BOTH Nano & Swahili simultaneously?
I maybe being a bit dense about this, but I don't quite get the rules from what I've read.
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 9:27,
archived)
As in entering into the search field BOTH Nano & Swahili simultaneously?
I maybe being a bit dense about this, but I don't quite get the rules from what I've read.
that Google should list only one result when both words are entered in the search box,
ie it says 'result 1-1 of 1'
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 9:34,
archived)
ie it says 'result 1-1 of 1'
now I get it, and that
"CRETACEOUS LOLITAS" whack was amazing.
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 9:37,
archived)
"CRETACEOUS LOLITAS" whack was amazing.
Tuna Escariot which clocked in at 338,611,000 points! Hoorah!
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 9:45,
archived)
I got 162 hits with "preposterous sycophant" who the hell can string a sentence together with these 2 words??? whaddafuck!
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 9:50,
archived)
Escariot isn't underlined...
The best I could come up with was "Fuck Hydrodynamically" for 25,710,300,000. I think it should get EXTRA points for being a grammatically correct two word sentance. (IE you can order somebody to "Fuck Hydrodynamically").
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 9:51,
archived)
The best I could come up with was "Fuck Hydrodynamically" for 25,710,300,000. I think it should get EXTRA points for being a grammatically correct two word sentance. (IE you can order somebody to "Fuck Hydrodynamically").
I managed to get one, though not stellar by any means, I was just happy to make one work.
Bohr: 184,000
Promethea: 7630
1,403,920,000
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 10:06,
archived)
Bohr: 184,000
Promethea: 7630
1,403,920,000
My whack is: "starchy didjeridoo": Oz-style googlewhacking!
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 9:56,
archived)
Its "didgeridoo". Didjeridoo is NOT underlined on the google search...
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 10:02,
archived)
a snapshot of the "proof" google search for each entry in the records, because once google caches your pages, the whacks will be invalidated, so a dated "image" of the google results would be a good idea...
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 10:00,
archived)
a search will throw up the googlewhack records page, i guarrantee it.
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 10:15,
archived)
ah.. after it's been posted to googlewhack. I see what you mean.
(,
Mon 28 Jan 2002, 10:21,
archived)
