also, we're killing our own work (was Re: [thechat] Re: googlewhack point system proposal)

[spinhead]

> That should be ( [wordcount(1) * wordcount(2) * . . . . wordcount(n)]^
> (1/n)) / n

d'oh! oh so obvious, in retrospect. Thanks.

>
> 8^-3 = 0.001953125
> 8^(1/3) = 2
>
> And my googlewhack (henceforth known as G.W.) of spelunking yeti nuggets
> gets my a Reverse Osmosis calculation of 37858 for an index of 37.0
>
> [(20,700 x 181,000 x 391,000) ^ (1/3)] / 3
>
> Not too bad.

Dang right it's not bad. Especially since it's probably a popular hobby,
too.

>
> Judah
>

what about the single word googlewhacks? Should we just equate them with the
Finger of God, and leave the scoring for the mere mortal doublewhacks, etc.
using your algorithim?

matt g.

Well, a single would calc out to the word count, so f'rinstance, if
'cerulean' were a gwhack, it would index to about 79 which is quite
respectable.

Anyone considered that by posting our gwhacks, we're creating an entry in a
web page (the archive) thereby killing them? Somehow, that makes it feel
like the chant of the ever circling skeletal family.

joel