I think I've finally decided what I'm going to do with this page. I shall dedicate it to the study (and relentless praise) of google. (of course, someone else has beaten me to this, viz. the Google Weblog (nice piece of phrase-grabbing there, and it's paid off - it's ifl:weblog!). (see also (ifl:)GoogleGuy says)
There have been a number of google-based phenomena which have come to my attention recently, and doubtless many which haven't. Since I don't know of any definitive list, I shall attempt to create one.
Clearly, the first thing to do in such an endeavour is to come up with a unique and catchy keyword for proliferation.
Googlomena, I choose you!
I hereby define "Googlomena" (singular Googlomenon) to be: "(mass) google-related phenomena". Specifically, I'm interested in the mass social effects (on the internet and in Real Life) of having such a good approximation to "all knowledge" to hand, and the ways in which people try to use/abuse/exploit google.
(Incidentally, I'm currently (3 May 2003) the sixth person on the Internet According to Google to record that GIYF denotes that "Google Is Your Friend", despite the fact that 2,960 pages have used the phrase in its full form. And no-one has yet spotted that DIAD stands for "Dilbert Is A Documentary"... (21 Oct 2005))
Before I start on the googlomena themselves, here are some useful google-related tools:
13 Jul 2003 - The Google Toolbar 2.0 is in beta, with an interesting "blog this" button. Is Google about to take over the blogosphere?
If you haven't installed the (ifl:)google toolbar yet, you'd better have a good reason. I suppose using (ifl:)Mozilla or Links (ifl:links+web+browser) counts.
The "I'm Feeling Lucky" Protocol. In the interests of cleaning up this page, I've given this its own page.
These aren't exactly googlomena, so they have their own page too.
Here are some lesser-known aspects of Google:
In the same general area, here are some nice things which people have done with the (ifl:)Google Web APIs:
Without further ado, here's:
Using google to look up everyone and everything you might come across, specifically prospective dates, interviewers/ees, etc. It's part of everyday life and you know it.
Also (10 Feb 2004) vanitygoogling, googling for one's own site.
Putative value associated with high PageRank. Fame and fortune await those who acquire it (or those who steal it via TrackBack spam).
The basic premise: Find two search terms which each return huge numbers of pages, but when searched for together have an overlap of just a single page. For instance, at time of writing my best is: makefile (5,620,000 pages) skateboards (159,000), giving a total score (when multiplied) of 893,580,000,000 (or 894 giga-googlewhacks, GGw).
Have a go at GoogleWhacking today.
Of course, that will fail as soon as google indexes this page. The hardcore whacker (ahem) should divide by the sum of the two numbers for the "Modified Whack" score, in this case 154,625. Here's a GoogleWhack score calculator.
This is remarkably addictive, and strangely, tends to show up other pages about googlewhacking (if done well?). For instance, I came across this altavista-based version (ifl:makefile+clitoris+antwon) and this googlewhacking game/discussion (ifl:crescent+game846). The discussion also spun-off the score calculator above, and includes the definitions of the scoring systems.
A googlewhacking-like game invented by Patrick Keane, who I'm hoping
is the same one who annoyed those SEO types. The aim of the game is
to combine your first name with one other word, so that
"ifl:
This is the trick of diverting the traffic through google by encouraging other people to add a link to their webpages with some specific text. For instance, I'd like to redirect some traffic from the Gap's webpage to BehindTheLabel.org. How do I do that? Well, let's consider it a worked example. If you'd like to see that too, add this link to your page:
<a href="http://www.behindthelabel.org/">Gap jeans</a>Preferably in bold, and unlike the above, a mention in the flow of text is probably good, but just adding the text alone should do the trick. Now all it takes is a few million people to do that, and suddenly when people search for "gap jeans", they might change their minds about that buying decision. Oh, and since it's just within the realms of possibility that I could get legal hassle to remove that link, that's all the more reason to act now.
Anyway, the article linked by the header covers this in more detail. And just before we're done moralising, I heartily endorse the book (ifl:)"No Logo".
This is probably still blocked, but was great fun when it worked. Update: You can, however, use the (in my opinion) slightly less cool: (ifl:)Google Smackdown instead.
Well, it's at googlism.com, which does some arcane lookup based on google to produce a list of "what google thinks of x".
From Joy Of Tech:
"Using the search engine Google.com as a treasure hunt tool in order to find a joke or humourous image. For instance, instructing a friend to search Google using specific keywords or phrases, in a[n] effort to guide them to a particularly funny result. Also known as (ifl:)GoogleGagging."
So basically, using ifl for jokes, without the handy notation.
This doesn't really need a comment.
Update, 13 Jul 2003 - (ifl:)GoogleStore is what I've been looking for. But the range is pretty limited, it's stateside only and has none of the spotty umbrellas :-( On the upside, it does have the obligatory google boxer shorts emblazoned with the phrase "I'm Feeling Lucky" :-)
Remarkably, Google itself prefers this page to its own google store for (ifl:)Google memorabilia. I may form a spin-off page for it, but for the moment, (ifl:)dot-store sell google tea-towels and here's evidence of google umbrellas, though they seem to be for employees only...
GoogleWords - a list of all of the most popular "Googl-" neologisms.
As of 10 Feb 2004, this appears to refer to having many cross-linked sites, either to "game" google, or in the form of The Trouble With Weblogs which Andrew Orlowski frets about (and as far as I can see, single-handedly invented). Have I mentioned that Andrew Orlowski is almost as rabidly anti-google as Daniel Brandt?
Well, if you're Google, you've got Eric Schmidt, author of Lex.
Here are some articles about google. I read a number of these but usually forget to document them.
