digg

Join DiggAbout

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at seomoz.org

Hilarious Google Search Results

seomoz.org — A collection of Google searches resulting in instant answers to your query. Walken, Cartman, Astley - they're all here.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bbcarter, on 04/24/2008, -24/+52That was freakin hilarious, especially the kung fu one.
    • stonklit, on 04/24/2008, -5/+20Easily amused, eh?
      • Killwize, on 04/24/2008, -7/+3No, any reference to eddie izzard is awesomely funny!
        • MaiSacNjoMouf, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1I have no idea why you are being dugg down. You speak the truth.
    • fani, on 04/24/2008, -11/+18Too bad it didn't work when I typed in "i know kung fu" into www.google.com.
    • arcanesmile, on 04/24/2008, -4/+4its fake, but still funny :D
    • peacho, on 04/24/2008, -4/+3My favorite has to be the "Vegas" one.
    • Deamond606, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7Comment jacking here, but be aware of stupid ahead. Apparently nobody can read, these never claimed to be real, please stop saying "omg fake dosnt wurk" and burying as inaccurate.
    • keatonkeaton998, on 04/24/2008, -4/+4This is the worst digg article I've ever seen. How can one of the top digg articles be "WOULDN'T IT BE FUNNY IF THESE ACTUALLY CAME UP ON GOOGLE?" This is retarded.
    • hysterix, on 04/24/2008, -7/+1LOL, spam this person epically. She claims she rick rolled the internet.... Prove to her how wrong she is by mass e-mailing her.

      Have fun:

      Jane Copland
      4314 ROOSEVELT WAY NE
      SEATTLE, WA 98105

      Email: jane@seomoz.org
      Direct Phone: 206-632-3171
      Availability: 10am-6pm Mon-Fri
  • kidvitacus, on 04/24/2008, -11/+27This was a greatly needed break from the BLAH day I'm having. Well done moz'ers.
  • lolkittah, on 04/24/2008, -20/+199As a co-author, you have no idea how pleased I am that this is still relatively funny now that I'm sober.
    • HayString, on 04/24/2008, -1/+31The submitter was obviously stoned when he made that headline.
    • ahawks, on 04/24/2008, -2/+23Co-author, of what? The fake search results?
    • diggystardust, on 04/24/2008, -5/+5screw sober, I'm drunk and it's still funny.
    • jerrycurley, on 04/24/2008, -7/+8Don't quit your day job...unless that day job invlves comedy. If that is the case, then quit ASAP.
    • hysterix, on 04/24/2008, -8/+1If all of you are as angry as I am that this moron calls herself a, "co-author" like you actually produced some meaningful content, well please e-mail/call this moron Jane Copland because she needs to know that this article sucks balls.

      Have fun:

      Jane Copland
      4314 ROOSEVELT WAY NE
      SEATTLE, WA 98105

      Email: jane@seomoz.org
      Direct Phone: 206-632-3171
      Availability: 10am-6pm Mon-Fri
  • natdowner, on 04/24/2008, -16/+10Haha these definitely made me laugh... glad to see it submitted to digg
  • kensavage, on 04/24/2008, -8/+311how many people typed in these queries to see if they really showed those results. ME! Thought I had a new way to game Google.
    • DemDude, on 04/24/2008, -2/+53Me too, but only the rick astley thing... =(
    • wes00mertes, on 04/24/2008, -3/+27After I saw the South Park one I figured it was fake. The last thing google needs is some conservative mother typing in 'wellll...'
    • NevaDieENT, on 04/24/2008, -3/+23Serves me right for not reading what preceded the searches... I thought those were all real for a second.
      I wasn't dumb enough to check though. I'm pretty sure google is less vulgar.
      • Scaryclouds, on 04/24/2008, -2/+4I figured it was fake after the Cartman, but I checked anyways. Google can be pretty witty from time to time.
    • purzzzell, on 04/24/2008, -2/+8I was dumb enough to check - I didn't realize it was "our new ideas"
    • AROZ, on 04/24/2008, -4/+26I'd only digg this if it was real. So I guess this comment is going to get buried since the story has a lot of diggs.
    • WhoPharted, on 04/24/2008, -2/+8and honestly, how many people wanted to say the exact same thing he just did?
    • thelock65, on 04/24/2008, -3/+8I dugg it because i thought it was real. i tried like four of them, then was confused why it didnt work, went back and read the article again to figure out why it didnt work, then, still confused, went and watched southpark. 1864!
    • outsid3rNo17, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3Digg title is wrong. The title of the article is "Google Search Results MISSING from OneBox"
    • DefaultGen, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2I typed in 3 before I figured "Well *maybe* it's fake..."
  • talonstriker, on 04/24/2008, -4/+38The title is misleading but the article was pretty good. I didn't know about google's "onebox"...
  • EwMo, on 04/24/2008, -4/+15Call me an idiot, but how does this "onebox" thing work? Or how do I use it?
    • akkibaba, on 04/24/2008, -3/+65First, you open up Photoshop...
    • ruddy, on 04/24/2008, -3/+79step one. cut a hole in the box
    • JoeBaynham, on 04/24/2008, -12/+14Step two. ???
      Step three. Profit.
    • mexicanmonkey, on 04/24/2008, -13/+10you're an idiot
      • EwMo, on 04/24/2008, -2/+7Yes, I now realize that, thank you.
      • Trichomonas, on 04/24/2008, -3/+1Just put in your question as a search.

        For example you can search:
        432*989 and you will get = 433 182 as the result to your 'search'

        You can also ask questions like "what is the time in ____"
        • metateck, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2That product isn't even accurate. 432*989 = 427248.
        • DubBucket, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2+1 nerd point for checking...
    • qeorge, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1OneBox is triggered automatically by Google on queries like addresses, phone numbers, FedEx tracking numbers, equations, movie times, musicians, and about 20 other things. They add more types of OneBox results from time to time.

      Its cases where Google's algo is fairly certain you're asking for a direct answer it can provide through one of its services.

      You're not an idiot, OneBox is something everyone sees but only the SEO community is obsessed with.
  • mooseontheloose, on 04/24/2008, -38/+8none of those are real BURIED for trying to dupe the consumer
    • jwiesenborn, on 04/24/2008, -1/+16fta "However, we feel that Google has neglected to include some important information in its OneBox offerings. As such, we've taken it upon ourselves to craft the next generation of OneBox results."
      • senatorpjt, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3I think he's talking about the title/summary. "A collection of Google searches resulting in instant answers to your query." Not "A collection of Google searches that don't really do anything."
    • freakk123, on 04/24/2008, -2/+4Dupe what consumer? They're not selling any product/service, and thus there is no consumer.
      And regardless, like jwiesenborn noted, they're not trying to dupe anyone.
    • nymphetamine, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1OH MY GOD. There's a moose on the loose!
  • wille1623, on 04/24/2008, -10/+4my favorite was the south park one
    • LowFuel, on 04/24/2008, -3/+3I dont know why you guys are digging him down, I find that fascinating.
      In this day and age when everything is ME ME ME, thanks for taking the time to share, wille1623.
  • Protoss, on 04/24/2008, -1/+16Rambo: First Blog Part II?
    • lolkittah, on 04/24/2008, -8/+3Ah... yeah. We were a bit drunk when we wrote it and that was quite the Freudian slip!
      • Protoss, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3I thought maybe it was some subtle joke I didn't get....That or the movie really was called Blog Part II.
        • lolkittah, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Subtle joke as opposed to drunken blunder? Yes, let's go with that ;)
        • SeventhSon, on 04/24/2008, -3/+2You've never seen Rambo: Blog Part II? It's a classic! It should be required viewing for schoolchildren.
      • plunderphonics, on 04/24/2008, -3/+6Freudian Slip..
        Rambo First Blow Part II
        What you have on your hands is just a good old-fashioned slip
    • dudefather, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Mood: Vengeance
      listening to: the sound of WAR
  • DeathJux, on 04/24/2008, -12/+327"Hilarious FAKE Google Search Results"

    ***** I hate all the deception in Digg story titles.

    The fabricated search results were clever, but submitting it deceitfully has incurred my almighty wrath which I shall pour into the bury button, burying with the fury of a thousand dying suns which, thanks to the Digg algorithm, will still only count as one bury.
    • SpectreFire, on 04/24/2008, -4/+9Yeah! ***** you randfish! ***** YOU!
    • manteca29, on 04/24/2008, -4/+14i have to agree. but my issue is with the word "hilarious". its clever, but hilarious, come on.
      • MLisa, on 04/24/2008, -2/+6YES. I bury this due to the word Hilarious. Not even funny...
    • TruMetaluna, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4That is one hell of a rant!
    • Chalks777, on 04/24/2008, -2/+16You'd think the algorithm would take into account the fury of a thousand dying suns.
  • akkibaba, on 04/24/2008, -2/+33I admit it, I actually searched for "Things rick astley would never do" because it sounds just like one of Google's easter eggs. For example, the result for "the answer to life, the universe and everything".
    • Grub, on 04/24/2008, -8/+1ya I know, because I read the article, which stated that fact, and a link to it
      • Kanidia, on 04/24/2008, -6/+3Just so that you know, this is fake. You obviously didn't read the article throughly, because they never linked to it... since it DOESN'T EXIST. Anyways, have a good day.
    • MAGZine, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Google also knows how long it takes to get from here to there, but tha'ts an older one; too.
      • DubiousDrewski, on 04/24/2008, -1/+0I tried to get directions from Here to There in google maps, and it actually found a small-ass town in France called Héré. Google is such a smartass.
  • DarkSamus, on 04/24/2008, -5/+8those in for a treat
    google: brazilian
  • shortyjacobs, on 04/24/2008, -1/+26Slut Bunwalla. Awesome. Eddie Izzard rules.
    • Sh00t3r, on 04/24/2008, -1/+10i know, that made me so happy inside. executive transvestites ftw.
      • shortyjacobs, on 04/24/2008, -1/+14Whoever dug you down obviously has never seen a squirrel in makeup.

        Cake or death?
        • jer21, on 04/24/2008, -1/+9uhhh...cake please
          • shortyjacobs, on 04/24/2008, -1/+9Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush.
          • jer21, on 04/24/2008, -1/+9What, so my choice is ‘or death?’ Well, then I’ll have the chicken, please.
          • shortyjacobs, on 04/24/2008, -1/+9Taste of human, sir. Would you like a white wine? There you go, thank you very much.

            Thank you for flying Church of England, cake or death?
          • kitsua, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6Digg! Digg! Digg you all!!!!1!!!

            Eddie rules.
    • wedges, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4Running, jumping, climbing trees, putting on makeup when you're up there.
  • zarand, on 04/24/2008, -0/+55I know it's old, but my favorite is still googling:

    "worst band in the world"
  • trizzlelv, on 04/24/2008, -11/+4Dugg *ONLY* cuz the author, Jane Copland, is a hottie. It's kinda like having a woman as a sideline reporter.. sure, she has no idea what she's talking about, but hey, at least she looks good.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3BOOOO HOOOO HOOOO LEAVE JANE ALONE! BOOOO HOOOO HOOOOO
    • hoodmonkey, on 04/24/2008, -1/+8You're creepy.
  • coheedcollapse, on 04/24/2008, -10/+4These are really stupid and are displayed on every single image spam blog that I've ever stumbled upon. If google did them for real, it'd be news, otherwise, it's just some guy taking well know phrases and photoshopping them into a google search.
    • shortyjacobs, on 04/24/2008, -3/+3Yeah, and that's the joke, you killjoy asshat.
      • coheedcollapse, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1It's not a joke when literally any retard can come up with it. This isn't imaginative or funny.
  • computerusr, on 04/24/2008, -6/+2You think thats funny -_-
  • farkis, on 04/24/2008, -3/+0I like the one where they mention fritter jacks. Can someone email me that recipee?
  • deadlift, on 04/24/2008, -16/+3What the *****, I typed this ***** ***** into Google and came up with normal results

    ***** YOU SEOMOZ, ***** YOU JANE COPLAND, ***** YOU MRBABYMAN
    • NathaMan10101, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2There photoshoped or edited or SOMTHING but there fake *****........
  • Goldbricker, on 04/24/2008, -3/+15It's amazing what passes for "hilarious" these days.
  • TheWorm, on 04/24/2008, -13/+8Buried for being misleading. Google doesn't actually do any of those things.
    • shortyjacobs, on 04/24/2008, -2/+10Did ANYONE read the blurb at the top of the ***** page???
      • HawkeyeMatt, on 04/24/2008, -6/+1Not I.
      • homerang, on 04/24/2008, -2/+10How DARE you accuse me of reading the article before commenting!
      • TheWorm, on 04/24/2008, -4/+1Yes. I did read the title and the headline. Neither said it was a satire.
        • str1fe, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5No, read the head line of the ***** article, not the digg page.

          "However, we feel that Google has neglected to include some important information in its OneBox offerings. As such, we've taken it upon ourselves to craft the next generation of OneBox results."

          Still, the title/headline of the digg page are misleading, but RTFA.
          • TheWorm, on 04/24/2008, -4/+1I did read the article. I was talkng about the Digg story.
    • silfiriel, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1so where is that OneBox search?
  • straitfrmreddit, on 04/24/2008, -4/+3Slow news day?
  • Dmatias, on 04/24/2008, -2/+19Thats odd, all I got was this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Hila ...
  • cydlys, on 04/24/2008, -6/+1I can't even see it, but I can tell from my fellow diggers that I should be ashamed of you, so..
    screw you!!!
    • Chalks777, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Because following the crowd is a good thing.
  • jwiesenborn, on 04/24/2008, -12/+10bury this
  • specialK16, on 04/24/2008, -5/+5Mirror anyone?
  • Zlorp, on 04/24/2008, -10/+19buried for inaccurate title

    should have said: "lame waste of time that will make it to the front page because the OP linked it on a message board somewhere"
  • WickEd101, on 04/24/2008, -5/+4I'm glad Google doesn't contain any of these.
    • stevene, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3I'm not. That Rick Astley one would be hilarious.
  • jp12380, on 04/24/2008, -6/+1http://www.roadsidescholar.com/wp-content/uploads/ ...
  • plunderphonics, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2"Wellllllll...
    I got no face and I'm here to say"
  • h0zae, on 04/24/2008, -8/+3Another reason to hate any blog with the word SEO in it...
  • ElBeh, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1Did you hear that awful sound?
  • BlackJackJester, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6mirror?
  • BiGBiLLZ, on 04/24/2008, -5/+2I call shenanigans
  • liquidtaco, on 04/24/2008, -2/+12direct image links:
    http://www.seomoz.org/img/upload/onebox-1.jpg
    http://www.seomoz.org/img/upload/onebox-2.jpg
    http://www.seomoz.org/img/upload/onebox-3.jpg
    http://www.seomoz.org/img/upload/onebox-4.jpg
    http://www.seomoz.org/img/upload/onebox-5.jpg
    http://www.seomoz.org/img/upload/onebox-6.jpg
    http://www.seomoz.org/img/upload/onebox-7.jpg
  • frenchi, on 04/24/2008, -10/+5maybe I just don't get it.
    none of these work for me.

    but HILLARY SUCKS.
  • ballsanya, on 04/24/2008, -5/+2actually I did get a nice pie chart.

    http://blog.mlive.com/mediumfidelity/2008/03/large ...
  • stonklit, on 04/24/2008, -8/+7Not really that funny. Buried.
  • ahawks, on 04/24/2008, -9/+6Buried for being not that funny, AND FAKE. These are not real google search results.
    • drafhk, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6The article said that if you learned how to read.
  • DeanRed, on 04/24/2008, -4/+4was I the only one that started trying these in Google?
  • tehsly, on 04/24/2008, -7/+0funny but the search is LIE! It doesn't work!
    I say it was edited!
  • vibrate, on 04/24/2008, -6/+2buried for not being hilarious at all
  • novenator, on 04/24/2008, -3/+4Anyone remember during 2002 when you googled:
    "weapons of mass destruction"
    and hit the "ill take my chances" button?
    Now THAT was a great google easter egg!
  • Syni, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5Gets my digg for the Eddie Izzard reference.
  • Razenoth, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3Best thing you can do with the Google Calculator is have it convert things into lightyears.. example: how many tablespoons in a cubic lightyear ( A: 1 cubic lightyear = 5.72628577 × 1052 US tablespoons)
    • DaHuuuuuudge, on 04/24/2008, -0/+11 cubic lightyear = 5.72628577 × 10^52 US tablespoons
      Don't forget the carrot!
    • gage006, on 04/24/2008, -0/+11 light year = 9.4605284 × 10^27 picometers

      the more you know..
  • TheDudeDiggs, on 04/24/2008, -2/+5everyone needs more cowbell
  • erkokite, on 04/24/2008, -10/+6None of these seem to work. I call shenanigans.
    • hoodmonkey, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6If you'd actually read the story you'd see where they've "taken it upon ourselves to craft the next generation of OneBox results."
    • keitarofujiwara, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Wooosh!!!
  • pendrachken, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4I'm kinda confused here.

    Does the reading the first "result" count as a rickroll?
  • AnonBuffalo, on 04/24/2008, -6/+1these dont work. buried.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.