where can i find this
- Thread starter ct_krogen
- Start date
It a Googlewhack
I Googled it and ...
.. its a GoogleWhack!!!! Thats the unofficial name for a Google search that returns just a single hit - in this case itself (your forum post requesting where to find it).
I know this doesn't answer your question but I got so excited at this discovery (at my age just about anything does that) that I could not resist the post.
I Googled it and ...
.. its a GoogleWhack!!!! Thats the unofficial name for a Google search that returns just a single hit - in this case itself (your forum post requesting where to find it).
I know this doesn't answer your question but I got so excited at this discovery (at my age just about anything does that) that I could not resist the post.
Hi Pware, hardly a discovery unless you can honestly say you didn't read this post on another thread a couple of days ago:
No - I didn't read that thread.
The thing about Google-whacks is their very short life. As soon as someone posts that they have found one and includes the search term (in this case kuid:276364:1218) in their post, then Google will find that post and the count will go up to 2 and its no longer a Google-whack - oops, I just did that!!!
The thing about Google-whacks is their very short life. As soon as someone posts that they have found one and includes the search term (in this case kuid:276364:1218) in their post, then Google will find that post and the count will go up to 2 and its no longer a Google-whack - oops, I just did that!!!
His discovery was finding a GoogleWhack, not using Google to search a web site, which by the way the Google Advanced Search has had for years, plus a lot more ways to filter out stuff that you don't want to find. So that other thread from a couple of days ago was hardly a revelation.
Hi Alanti, firstly, I didn't say my previous post was a revelation. Secondly, having never heard of Google Whack which probably puts me on a par with most readers of these forums, I assumed the phrase was used as an expression like "wow" "golly" "wham" etc. Had pware wished to share this new discovery with us by explaining what it was and how we may access it, I probably would have rushed off to see for myself to find out what it was all about. However, with my vision as it is, the screenshot looked exactly like any other Google search screenshot, thus the reason for my post.
After Pware's second post, I'm even more interested, but never-the-less, none the wiser. Maybe a Google search for Google Whack is in order. If I find anything, I promise to keep it to myself
After Pware's second post, I'm even more interested, but never-the-less, none the wiser. Maybe a Google search for Google Whack is in order. If I find anything, I promise to keep it to myself
Having Glaucoma and cataracts, my eyesight is not that good either, but I find that holding down the Ctrl key while moving the scroll wheel on the mouse brings everything up to a size that I can manage. (If you don't have a scroll wheel, then Ctrl with the "+" on the numeric keypad also works) 
I too went blind from cataracts a few years back, thus one of the reasons I had to shut down some of my Trainz activities. I'm okay now, but even using Ctrl + to enlarge the image as I regularly have to do, I'm whacked if I can see anything about "whack" in that screenshot. Looks like a normal google search to me.
To prove my point and stand by my first post, here's an un-whacked very standard Google search I did ten minutes ago:
To prove my point and stand by my first post, here's an un-whacked very standard Google search I did ten minutes ago:
Last edited:
Ah! Now I understand. That 'sort of' reminds me of a guy who offered to get my site number ranking on in the search engines. To prove his point, he told me to do a search for (and I kid you not) women under 16 with bald eagle tattoos on the right side of their lower back. Of course he had that self same string of key words on his home page didn't he? It was also a Whack and he was a wha*ker!
I thought Google was pretty impressive listing your post within 10 minutes of you writing it. This one is probably listed already and I haven't even sent it yet.
Bing on the other hand refuses to list the Directory. It eventually will, but who know when?
I thought Google was pretty impressive listing your post within 10 minutes of you writing it. This one is probably listed already and I haven't even sent it yet.
Bing on the other hand refuses to list the Directory. It eventually will, but who know when?
Now the Google count for kuid:276364:1218 is up to 7 (or 8 if you count this post). But I'm a bit miffed that Google only classifies the original post as "significant".
Note to ct_krogen: Sorry but we haven't been able to answer your original question that started all this nonsense.
Note to ct_krogen: Sorry but we haven't been able to answer your original question that started all this nonsense.
Having Glaucoma and cataracts, my eyesight is not that good either, but I find that holding down the Ctrl key while moving the scroll wheel on the mouse brings everything up to a size that I can manage. (If you don't have a scroll wheel, then Ctrl with the "+" on the numeric keypad also works)
I do that all the time too. My vision gives me problems now too due to Parkinson's, which affects the optic nerves. I've noticed that even with my glasses, I still can't see the text half time so I've resorted to blowing things up so I can read them.
Why is it that so many websites, textbooks, magazines, which I've given up on, and many other things, have text on them that's about the size of a cat whisker or smaller? I spend more time adjusting the light, holding things up to the light, and or finding some form of magnification so I can see the content.
I've never heard of a Google Whack either. When I first read the term, I though that's what you do when you can't find what you're looking for in Google.
John
Hi John, sadly it's a sign of the times. In times you and I can remember, the printing industry had total control of the printed word. Standards were set and applied. Things like rivers of white, widowed and orphan lines, excessive use of fonts, line length to type height ratios where all controlled by editors and governments who, in Australia at least, published a 400 page Style manual for Publishers and Printers. That book would be a collector's item today.
With the advent of computers and the buzz phrase "Desktop Publishing" everyone now has the opportunity to destroy what was once an art. Remember the term "Graphic Arts". It was a lovely one and a great community to be a member of.
When I was a letterpress printer, we had twenty fonts at our disposal, but used maybe half a dozen for all the work we ever produced. We used Medium, Bold and Italic, Light was frowned upon and underlining was something you used on a typewriter because it couldn't print in bold.
Today, it's a matter of who can seen to be the most obscene. Old English is a text font. in fact it's even called Old English Text. It's impossible to read when capitalised, yet idiots pay thousands of dollars to have a name tattooed on their bodies in capitals, making it impossible for anyone to read, including the tattoo artist him/herself.
Remember the expression "fine print"? It was used on legal documents and insurance policies so that people like you and I could never read it. Now it's considered standard on the Internet. Even a well known Trainz Community web site uses microscopic grey type on a black background, making it impossible to read more than ten words. Yet I bet they think it's fantastic.
Sorry about the rave, but you hit a nerve.
Regards, John
With the advent of computers and the buzz phrase "Desktop Publishing" everyone now has the opportunity to destroy what was once an art. Remember the term "Graphic Arts". It was a lovely one and a great community to be a member of.
When I was a letterpress printer, we had twenty fonts at our disposal, but used maybe half a dozen for all the work we ever produced. We used Medium, Bold and Italic, Light was frowned upon and underlining was something you used on a typewriter because it couldn't print in bold.
Today, it's a matter of who can seen to be the most obscene. Old English is a text font. in fact it's even called Old English Text. It's impossible to read when capitalised, yet idiots pay thousands of dollars to have a name tattooed on their bodies in capitals, making it impossible for anyone to read, including the tattoo artist him/herself.
Remember the expression "fine print"? It was used on legal documents and insurance policies so that people like you and I could never read it. Now it's considered standard on the Internet. Even a well known Trainz Community web site uses microscopic grey type on a black background, making it impossible to read more than ten words. Yet I bet they think it's fantastic.
Sorry about the rave, but you hit a nerve.
Regards, John
Last edited:
ok, w\ill try that