Googlewhack: The Search for 'The One'
GW Home  |   GW Rules  |   GW FAQ  |   The Whack Stack  |   Record Your Whack!  |   GW History  |   GW Contact  |   Who's Gary Stock? 

Whack FAQ!   WAQ FAQ!   WAQ FHACK!   Whack FHACK!

Some of these are merely Frequently Asked Questions. Others are Constantly Asked Questions. Many are Incessantly, Disturbingly, Irritatingly Asked Questions. Often, they're not even Questions, they're Assertions!

Everything from FAQ to FHACK: Frequently Harrassing Assertions Claiming Knowledge!

So, here's the Whack FHACK, starting with the nice ones, and working on down.


Why would you say that I used a WORDLIST when I didn't... and who would care if I had?
What does it mean when the term 'GoogleLACK' appears -- or why do you let them stack?
Why do you allow only English words s'il vouz plait, bitte, por favor, onegai shimasu?
Google says these two words can find no results. Isn't zero better than having one?
Your Whack says two results (or zero, or three), but Google says one. What's up? <- UK whackers, look!
Answers.com recognizes my Googlefactors, but your list won't. What's wrong?
I found 'N' results, but 'N-1' are word lists. Shouldn't that whack count, too?
Three-letter words are better to whack. You should let me use threes, too!
Antidisestablishmentarianism is too a word! Your program's kinda lame!
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is too a word! You guys are lame!!
Any person's name is too a word! You guys R SO LAME!!!
Anything written is too a word! U R SO LAME!!!!
Anything I think is too a word! U SUCK!!!!!
 

Why would you say that I used a WORDLIST when I didn't... and who would care if I had?
>  I didn't use a word list!  I don't even have a word list.  Even
>  if I did use a word list, I don't know what would be wrong
>  with that.  Don't say that I used a wordlist.  I didn't do that!
Whoa, big fella! WORDLIST :-( describes the web page where your whack was found. Thousands of such lists exist for Scrabble, crosswords, and so forth. They may look like a bibliography, encyclopedia, glossary, thesaurus, or dictionary. (Many are raw material for computer science courses in word analysis.) The Whack Stack is reserved for pure whacks from more 'organic' sources.

Always look at the Google excerpt before e-mailing me a complaint! Millions more pages are merely machine-generated random text -- they're wordlists without the nice, even columns. These pages spam Googlebot to trick you into clicking, because the moron on the other end makes $0.0003 if you do. Or, they have such incredibly uninteresting porn that they must resort to word lists to draw traffic. If you write to me to argue that such a page is not a wordlist, I am likely to mock you for doing so. There. You've been warned.

If you are blocked in error, feel free to let me know. However, first, actually go to Google, search, and visit that page! Many word jumbles look like English prose, but are not (for examples, search Google for 'hipcrime' or 'sporgeries'). Also, lists are scattered all across some word game sites. In complex cases, the entire site is considered a WORDLIST :-(

Often, Whack recognizes a wordlist; in that case, you can't stack. However, some wordlists only come to light after the stacking is done; they're marked as such in The Whack Stack. (Yes, someone will turn you in!)
 

What does it mean when the term 'GoogleLACK' appears -- or why do you let them stack?
>  The page isn't bogus.  Look up and see that it's been up  
>  a long time before Googlewhacking existed.  A whack is a
>  whack, right?  I was careful not to use the same terms
>  over and over again.  They're all unique.
Are you a lawyer? You sound a _lot_ like a lawyer. Have you ever worked for Enron? :-)

The page is not the issue. The term 'GoogleLACK' reveals a cherry-picking approach to GW: a whacker discovers a Googlewhack the hard way (that is, using Google), then digs through the resulting page to find and stack other whacks. (Some folks find an uncommon word or context, and think, "More is better." Ummm... no.) Quite frequently such pages also are wordlists.

This activity is easy to recognize. We've considered banning it, allowing only one whack per page per person per day, or some such drudgery (but decided merely to mock LACKers instead :-) Hey, it's not a Google Whack unless you Whack Google!
 

Why do you allow only English words s'il vouz plait, bitte, por favor, onegai shimasu?
(Nice answer: A Googlefactor must respect Rule Number One :-)
>  I have not english too much.  googlewhack is 'bolar madlin'?
>  You must to make in French for search words.  You must to
>  say where is French googlewhack and make recording?
My apologies. I do not speak French. I am not an expert in French. Answers.com is not an expert in French. Answers.com and I use primarily English words. Now, I will reveal that my French is not better than your English:

Je ne parle pas francais. Google ne recherche pas des mots francais automatiquement. Merci.

Aunque hablo espanol bastante bien, Google y su diccionario no ofrecen manera de descrubrir las palabras automaticamente. Gracias.

Bitte, schreiben Sie mir nicht auf Deutsch. Ich kann ein bisschen Deutsche lesen, aber er kann ich nicht schreiben. Google kennt deutsche Seiten, aber hat nicht ein automatisches Verzeichnis. Danke.
 

Google says these two words can find no results. Isn't zero better than having one?
(Nice answer: We require a Googlewhack to return one result :-)
>  Now, I just tried 'necromantical bastardizations' and it gets
>  zero results!  Now, it must be harder to find zero than one!
>  Isn't that a lot harder?  I should get credit for finding it!
Now, I just tried 'pugilistically cynosure' and found zero results. Now, using either of those two words as an anchor, you could add another obscure Googlefactor and find zero results again and again all day. Now, you could. Now, really. Now, you don't want to. Now, really.

Now, think of it this way: the ideal target in Googlewhacking is one result; most people can hit eight or ten, but getting down toward one requires technique. Now, similarly, the ideal target in golf is a hole in one; most people can hit eight or ten, but getting down toward one requires technique. Now, whacking is to words what golfing is to balls. Now, that sounds strange aloud.

Now, if Tiger Woods just kept whacking it completely off the course every time, what would that do to his promotional fees? Now, do you see, now? What about now?
 

Your Whack says two results (or zero, or three), but Google says one. What's up?
(Nice answer: We require a Googlewhack to return one result :-)

>  OK.  I got exactly one result at Google, always exactly one.
>  But your site said there are none, zero, ever.  It's wrong,  
>  because I got exactly one, and this screenshot proves it!!!
I believe you. But, do everyone a favor, and do not send screenshots in e-mail. If you don't know what you're doing, they can be enormous.

Google is constantly indexing new pages, and reindexing old pages. Their index changes; that's what makes their search engine useful. However, there are several technical reasons your results may differ.

First, every page may not be available at every moment, due to maintenance and service rotation, load balancing, and other technical conditions. (It's true of all search engines -- you just notice it more when you're nearly whacked :-)

Second, you are not Whack! Whack determines what is visible from its own location -- Whack can not know (nor can it stack based upon) what is visible from your location. No matter how you link to Google, you are looking at results from your location. Whack has whacked accurately millions of times. For the site to work, Whack must set the standard for "not wrong."

You may get a different result just by connecting from a different location, or asking at a different time of day. That's simply how such things work. Relax. Try again later, when the universe may be in peaceful alignment. Or, find a new Googlewhack.
 

Answers.com recognizes my Googlefactors, but your list won't. What's wrong?
(Nice answer: We require a Googlewhack to return one result :-)

>  It keeps telling me that answers.com does not now the 
>  words, BUT IT DOES!!!!!!!!!  Whats the deal??????????
>  It should be on your site, but your site is stupid I guess.
Gee, thanks for noticing. I trust Google. Sometimes, they're just a little busy. They do important work (such as finding you the page you're looking for), instead of trivial work (such as adding one little link to a definition). So, when our Whack! goes looking, either Google or Answers.com might be busy with other tasks. If our Whack! doesn't find the link at Google, it simply assumes the word is not a valid Googlefactor.

Never be surprised when you can see data (such as a word definition) on one site that serves it, but you can't see the same data on any second- or third-cousin site (such as Google, or Googlewhack). People, software, networks, and machines simply are not that perfect.
 

I found 'N' results, but 'N-1' are word lists. Shouldn't that whack count, too?
(Nice answer: We require a Googlewhack to return one result :-)

I admit limited patience for assertions which might otherwise (if properly worded, spelled, and punctuated) be reasonable:
>   Hey --if I cant use a dictonary page to get a wack, but I found
>  one with a bunch of other word pages then I should get a wack 
>  anyway, right?!?!?  How com I can't put it in?????  It's broken!!!
Hey, to you too! I understand the theory that since word lists shouldn't be counted as a whack, they shouldn't be counted against a whack. (It's a logical extension of the theory that when you find money on the street you should keep it, but when you lose money on the street everybody else should give it back to you.)

However, our Whack! script has plenty to do in verifying both the existence of just one result, and Google's recognition of the Answers.com element. We've considered checking for word lists, but it's not entirely trivial. So, you'll just have accept that if you don't actually do something, you won't actually get credit for it. Sort of like... real life.
 

Three-letter words are better to whack. You should let me use threes, too!
(Nice answer: We require a Googlewhack to return one result :-)
>  Why will your whack not accept 3 letter words?  I should 
>  be able to whack 'gop' and 'aba' because they are much more 
>  challenging. Using them I could get a lot more whacks!
Yes, both the GOP and the American Bar Association are very challenging, and many people really would like to whack them. However, haven't we all gotten enough whacks from them already? If everyone simply stopped accepting them, there would be hope.

On a less serious note, these are not words. They're acronyms. Thousands of three-letter 'words' actually are acronyms or abbreviations recognized by Answers.com. A few days ago, we had quite a spate of attempts using:
 aar
 bcb
 bcg
 dve
 jez
 klc
 pij
 pyx
 qat
 roc
 sdo
 sdu
 unp
 yoa
 zek
 zep
 zzz

The web and the 'net are not qat zek, nor pij sdo...   and not all men 
can say pyx unp, but, yes... you may. But not now, and not for our use.  
Try for one hit but not for klc, nor unp, nor zzz.
One whacker reported a valid short-word whack - sort of. Two relatively common four-letter words appeared inside a graphic which was incorrectly named (without the appropriate '.tiff' suffix). Even though it contained a jumble of random-looking bits, Google dutifully parsed it as text, and found both words!

So, I stopped accepting three-letter words, and remain suspicious of four-letter words... at least in pairs. And, we should all remain suspicious of GOP and ABA... especially in pairs.
 

Antidisestablishmentarianism is too a word! Your program's kinda lame!
(Nice answer: A Googlefactor must respect Rule Number One :-)
> I learned floccinaucinihilipilification in school and
> it is SO a word, but yuor dictionary doesnt even know it
> You GUYS SUCK!!!
Actually, we don't. If everything seems to be moving away from you, perhaps you blow.

Please don't misinterpret this as floccinaucinihilipilification. Many hippopotomonstrosesquipidalian words have great import, as any sufferer of pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis would agree. (Our Whack! verification accepts only 30 letters in either word, so you can't use that 45-letter fellow.) Other things you really don't want to put in my mailbox:
39  hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies
39  tetramethyldiaminobenzhydrylphosphinous
37  dimethylamidophenyldimethylpyrazolone
37  formaldehydetetramethylamidofluorimum
31  dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
29  floccinaucinihilipilification
29  paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde
29  trinitrophenylmethylnitramine
28  antidisestablishmentarianism
27  antitransubstantiationalist
27  ethylenediaminetetraacetate
27  honorificabilitudinitatibus
27  hydroxydesoxycorticosterone
27  methylchloroisothiazolinone
27  octamethylpyrophosphoramide
26  anhydrohydroxyprogesterone
26  cystoureteropyelonephritis
26  ethylenediaminetetraacetic
etc...
Now, any little itty-bitty thang from 30 letters on down, you're welcome to whack. However, it must meet the Google live-link test. Also, you must vow:
 1) you actually have used the word;
 2) you actually know what it means.
Whatever you do, please, please don't claim this as a whack (besides, from today forward, it won't be :-):
antidisestablishmentarianism hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian
"Hippo..." is spelled incorrectly. (But then, so was "your" and "doesn't" in your e-mail.)
 

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is too a word! You guys are lame!!

(Nice answer: A Googlefactor must respect Rule Number One :-)
> I just found jang supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
> and Whack! wont accept it!!!!!!  Its from a song.
> Whats wrong with your stupid program???????
Mary Poppins was not a lexicographer, I can walk perfectly well, and children's fantasy movie lyrics don't always show up as live links in the blue bar atop your Google results. One day they may, but not yet. (Dictionary.com didn't even know this word until 2004.)

Opening the door to 'snoopercalifornicationecstacyalicious' would be a move toward accepting 'shaboom' and 'awop-bop-a-loo-mop-alop-bam-boom.' Now, what's the correct spelling of that, eh? A Poppinfactor is just not going to work out - not as a Googlefactor. But... if you say it loud enough, you'll always sound precocious! For a change.
 

Any person's name is too a word! You guys R SO LAME!!!
(Nice answer: A Googlefactor must respect Rule Number One :-)
> Hi!  BALROG NUCLIDE returned exactly ONE result, but
> www.googlewhack.com rejected it because answers.com
> didn't recognize Balrog.
Yes, well, it doesn't recognize Gollum or Morgoth, either, but that doesn't make them any less real, right? What color is the sky in your world?
 

Anything written is too a word! U R SO LAME!!!!
(Nice answer: A Googlefactor must respect Rule Number One :-)
> Swaznia Schlattwhapper. Is it my fault that answers.com doesn't
> have a list of sniglet words? I don't think you should require them
> to be in a dictionary, honestly, words are words.
Duk! Berflik, dile feromil manang? Myshilt barrgen 'GW Rules' megi prens, megi prens gor.

Proth il deg meskity, unc parfo meskitilly. Bewossi 'Scrabble,' 'Boggle,' 'Merriam-Webster,' mels, mels, mels... kel deg Schlattwhapper $1,000 bic tull.

Paskin?
 

Anything I think is too a word! U SUCK!!!!!
(Nice answer: A Googlefactor must respect Rule Number One :-)
> You guys suck. I found two different whacks, but your site wouldn't 
> accept them.  Kluff and keeper appear together once, as do spread and 
> supervacuum.  All of those are words.  Use m-w.com, since obviously 
> Dictionary.com licks it hardcore.
Thanks so much for writing! Well, I just can't believe they don't have 'kluff'! It's unfortunate that you didn't go to m-w.com to look up 'supervacuum':
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box. 

Suggestions for supervacuum: 
   1. supercargo
   2. supermicro
   3. supercooled
   4. supermacho
   5. supercoiled
   6. superhuman
   7. supervision
   8. supervisor
   9. supermodel
  10. supervised
But, for a hypervacuum kruffter like you, at least your comments were both mature and constructive!

Site, Contents, Whacks, the Whole Shebang Copyright © 2001-2009 Gary Stock  |   Commercial use prohibited.
May be excerpted, mailed, posted, or linked only for non-commercial purposes.

Neither this site nor its contents are affiliated with the popular search engine Google - but 'Googlewhacking' sure is fun to say!