I can't help it!

[rivka]

Okay, the hell with work. Let's Googlewhack.

My first successful Googlewhack:
buccal resplendence (score = 188,790,000)

My next Googlewhacks successively declined in score, a disturbing trend:
buccal sempiternal (98,084,000)

fulgidity manor (71,760,000)

oleaginous antidisestablishmentarianism (66,155,000)

But then I hit pay dirt and broke a billion:
meningocele pornography (8,177,400,000!)

I've discovered two unexpected roadblocks in my (it must be conceded) brief search for the perfect Googlewhack:

(1) Far too many people have Cool Words sites. The truly unusual words tend to appear together in lists of truly unusual words. How unfair.

(2) Why does a search for "opisthognathous porn" produce site summaries like these?

(from a site offering pornographic pictures of fat women)
opisthognathous procrastinator brachycephalization Pictures Ugly Fat Women. valetudinarianism interjoist triphaser.

(from a site offering pics of allegedly "accidental" exposures of cheerleaders)
overcoated nonoffensive opisthognathous...her mouth caused his nuts to Free Upskirt Cheerleader free pantyhose porn pics tighten up and his cock to spurt a huge...
(mercifully, the Google summary ended there.)

Comments

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Okay, that was a decidedly hearty morning laugh. :-)

-J

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Okay, one more and then I'll stop:
luminosity chancres (636,300,000). My second-best score yet.

[tangleofthorns.livejournal.com]

"strumpet edema."
6,584,400,000.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Wait. "Monarchy chancres" is even better: 1,070,740,000.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

I don't quite understand the scoring.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

The score is figured by multiplying the number of hits for each of the individual words. That way, the more common your two words are, the higher score you get for finding a combination that only occurs once.

Thus, a good strategy for finding a high-scoring Googlewhack is to take an extremely common word (pornography = 2-million-plus Google hits) and try to combine it with a word so abstruse and unrelated that they're unlikely to occur on the same page. Even if the abstruse word only has a couple hundred hits by itself, multiplied together you'll still get a good score.

Inspired by our discussion over lunch...

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I got back here and tried electroluminescent zygote, hitting pay dirt.

Searching for electroluminescent zygote resulted in a Googlewhack with a score of 1559040000 (25600 x 60900).

Not bad. I'll see if I can think of any others as the afternoon progresses.

Re: Inspired by our discussion over lunch...

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Oooh. Over a billion on your first match! You are godlike.

Re: Inspired by our discussion over lunch...

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Oooh. Over a billion on your first match! You are godlike

I love you too dear. If I am godlike, it's due to your inspiration.

[mathochist.livejournal.com]

It's fun to try to get the *lowest* score, too. I wonder whether, somewhere out there, there are two words which only occur on one website, and neither occurs elsewhere, giving a score of 1. Not very likely with actual words, is it... misspellings or names are more likely there, I think. Hmmm....

Not a bad second effort either

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Sticking with the initial idea, I tried electroluminiscent mandolin. The result? 8,882,500,000 and I'm in 4th place overall. (At least for the moment.)

Re: Not a bad second effort either

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Where do you see overall rankings? I missed those.

I still haven't found anything to beat "meningocele pornography," but I did pretty well with "stevedore lactation" (6,438,500,000), plus whatever additional value accrues from the incongruity factor.

Also, for sheer amusement value, I offer "onanism marksmanship." (464,651,000).

Re: Not a bad second effort either

[wcg.livejournal.com]

The top ten rankings are new within the past couple of hours. When last I looked, Angi and I were side by side there. No idea if either of us is still there or not.

You're getting some very nice results. I agree that the incongruity of the words is an undervalued quality.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

"Warholesque gringe." (346,320)

What's gringe? Largely, it appears to be a mispelling of "Grinch." But one site offered a definition: Mac calls this new
style "gringe, because it's sort of grunge with a grin on its face." I've decided that this makes it legitimate enough to claim. :)

That's better.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

I thought the game was to use *common* words, not to pull out scienti-gabble?

Re: That's better.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I guess it depends on what you consider "common."

By the way...

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Too popular for its own good:

http://www.acesup.com/yeti/2002_01_27_archive.html#9207243

Well, my 15 seconds of Internet fame are over -- the Googlewhacker 74 Zillion got shut down due to bandwidth problems. I'll see if I can't get someone else to host it. Thanks to my very cool ISP Drizzle for putting up with it as long as they did.


By the way, I found a java-based Googlewhacker through (the currently unreachable) daypop yesterday evening. If you know the URL I'd appreciate it if you'd drop me a line so that I can make mention of it here.


Update: The java-based Googlewhacker was here, but it, too, has been yanked. That was fun while it lasted.

Re: That's better.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

"Scientists!"