Wildest Wildcard Searches?
Story Text:
If you hadn't read already, Google posted about improved wildcard searches this morning. Although not so interesting in itself, i was a little inspired by Sebastians entry into the Threadwatch Del.icio.us links (they show up on the right menu).
The Threadwatch Small Plastic Trumpet™ will be awarded for the stupidest, funniest, non-adult wildcard search!
Sebastian kicks us off with seo is all about *
Anyone else?
If you hadn't read already, Google posted about improved wildcard searches this morning. Although not so interesting in itself, i was a little inspired by Sebastians entry into the Threadwatch Del.icio.us links (they show up on the right menu).
The Threadwatch Small Plastic Trumpet™ will be awarded for the stupidest, funniest, non-adult wildcard search!
Sebastian kicks us off with seo is all about *
Anyone else?
- Y! MyWeb
Tony Blair is a *
[url=http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=tony+blair+is+a+*&btnG=Search]Tony Blair is a *[/url]
Actually, this looks interesting
I've been using partial queries to find information for a long time. The process is frustrating and time-consuming. Just a few test searches of the wildcard feature today turned up some very surprising and rewarding results.
I can see how this will impact SEOs, once they get their fingers around the asterisk.
This could be a good thing for a lot of people trying to get targeted traffic.
Google gets a tentative Bravo for this idea.
bloggers are a bunch of
[url=http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=bloggers+are+a+bunch+of+*&btnG=Search]bloggers are a bunch of *[/url]
ahh.. it's too easy :)
Im sure there must be some good "add url" type variations to this...
A new way to search
Interesting way to get information and opinions.
[url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-07%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=i+think+paris+hilton+is+*]i think paris hilton *[/url]
seems like a variant of the
seems like a variant of the old use a answer instead of a question way of finding stuff.
So instead of "what is fishing" you look for "fishing is", which os more likely to be found on a page telling you what fishing is.
Cack exaample. but you get the drift.
why use it at the end?
I'm pretty sure there isn't new. Google has had wildcards for a while, and was even a major part of the Google hacking book that is a few years old already.
Anyway, why does everyone use the * at the end? That would seem to make it less useful, though, (aha, interesting!) the results are different. Because shouldn't a search on "bloggers are a bunch of" turn up similar results to "bloggers are a bunch of *"? Where it becomes really useful is using it in the middle of a phrase.
it works with two wildcards too
[url=http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=*+hat+seo+*&meta=]* hat seo * [/url]
You can use multiple wildcards
what 2 read at tw
sorry I had to try it
[url=http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=*+*+*+*&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] * * * * [/url]
so can anyone explain that one?
Addicting
* seo * spam *
Gurtie
looks like you pulled a good part of the db with that query.
You can get up to 4 billion by using only 2 **
Keyword research on the SERPs
**** ?i?pod? ****
Osama
osama bin laden is hiding *
Quite a wide selection of wankers
[url=http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=*+is+a+wanker]* is a wanker [/url]
what fun :)
[url=http://www.google.com/search?q=spammers+are+a+bunch+of+*]spammers are a bunch of *[/url]
[url=http://www.google.com/search?q=linux+is+all+about+*]linux is all about *[/url]
[url=http://www.google.com/search?q=i+think+linux+*+*]I think linux * *[/url]
[url=http://www.google.com/search?q=i+think+windows+*+*]I think windows * *[/url]
!@%$#%@
This one seems to confuse google
*!@%$#%@
This one seems to pull half the DB too. It sure loves Keio University.
*!@%$#%@*
Images in web results?
http://www.google.com/search?q=i+think+linux+*+*
Screenshot
****
What you are looking at there is essentially an ordered list of the highest authority sites in the G index. Think big, think linking patterns.
Want to know who to try and get links from? Just work down the list...
order by authority
That's what I'd thought - but I'd have expected Google and a couple of others to be up there and they don't seem to be - plus there are some regional variations which (since it seems to show english language only) are a bit strange.
>>but I'd have expected
>but I'd have expected Google and a couple of others to be up there
Im sure Jason can correct me if im mistaken. I think that's becuase of links out. The pages on Google that get spidered by Google are not that authoratitive in respect to linking out, just linking in right?
Links out
I don't think so, in this case. Find the PDF, and check it out. Then go back up the dir sructure, and check the links there. It's fascinating reading....
AFAIK, MSN is the engine workign hardest with outbounds at the moment (nasa.gov, I feckin' ask you....)
Re: ****
Not likely. I doubt many people are linking to a David Grubin product page on PBS.ORG.
Yahoo! reports only one reference for it. So does Google.
The **** search is just something the query tool doesn't know how to handle, so it offers up whatever it can grab fast.
That, apparently, consists of pages with lots of asterisks in their ocntent.
not so sure of that either
from here it consistently favours pbs and I don't see many asterisks :)
MM, I don't see it....
> a David Grubin product page
I don't see what you are referring to here. What search are you doing and what page are you getting?
> think linking patterns
I've done some foolin' around with this; * [term] and [term] * SERPs are VERY interesting.... Competitive intelligence a-go-go!
Very interesting
Don't know what to make of this, yet. But it sure looks like it needs some further study.