Okay, I admit that this is 100% totally for selfish reasons of ego gratification, but I’m dying to know if I’m the person who coined the term “google vomit” not just on the Dope, but on the 'net as a whole, as I’ve seen it pop up in a few other places.
Essentially, IIRC, I first used it in 2005 or 2006 here on the Dope in a Pit thread to mean that someone had offered a google search itself as proof of their claim.
So 1) was this term in use on the Dope before I coined it and 2) how about the rest of the 'net?
I’ve tried to find out, but to be honest I have no idea how to track it down. Thanks in advance.
Perhaps it goes back to the 1920s in a once popular comic strip about a known drunk. The term might have been represented with a series of exclamation points, except in the special pay-per-view uncensored newspapers.
Heh, I did see it awhile ago made by our poster FinnAgain here on the Dope, IIRC he did not report that he got it from somewhere else so I got permission from him to use it for a series of tales/comics I’m making. Will keep an eye on this thread to see to who I have to credit.
Just a quick bump to see if anybody has/had seen it around the net earlier than 2005. If not, I may go update the damn Urban Dictionary page with the (correct!!!) definition.
Dec. 11, 2002. Google Groups.
I suspected something like that was hard to be original, but there is a difference there, the quote refers to what one could call a “wall of text” and the poster is complaining that the text is being used in an attempt to overwhelm an opponent, it is similar to what I think **FinnAgain **and others use it now, that is when an opponent posts a link to a Google search and demands the opponent to check all the links in it, in essence demanding the opponent to do the work for him/her in a discussion.
Ar least the one using the dishonest tactic in the link found by **samclem **does a less dishonest thing and, as the one making the quote reported, just posted long quotes or walls of text, at least the wall of text maker did an effort to look for something relevant.
I guess it will be a decision by the public what definition the term will get, but I will go for the one that the opponent of **FinnAgain ** helped define in such a clear jerkish way: a demand by an opponent to check a Google search and not pointing out at the relevant cite, at the same time the opponent claims that he/she is 100% correct. Usually there are contradictory cites in it the search, but the opponent does not care.
I have to say I proposed a definition close to yours at Urban Dictionary already; And yes, the definition that is there right now is wrong, that is what is called a “Google Bomb”, nowhere near to the “wall of text cite” definition found by samclem; so while it was not originally said by you, I think that there are dibs for finding a new and better definition.
I’m on my PC hours each day, have been for the better part of the last decade, and am a frequent Dope contributor (though never in The Pit) and I have never heard the phrase google vomit until now…
Yeah Ants, it’s not a well known term (yet!), but remember everybody who uses it from this point on owes me a nickle. I plan on retiring on this thang here.
<.<
>.>
Thanks Gigo, your definition is definitely good. And thanks Sam, but as Gigo points out I think while it’s the same term in your cite, its different usage makes it a different term in essence. The important part about google vomit isn’t that it’s a cite/quote that one found via google, but that it’s just random spew (or “vomit”) from google that someone is presenting as if it means anything.
“Oh yeah, you say that 9/11 wasn’t orchestrated by the Mossad working with the British crown? I rest my case.”
or
“What do you mean that the Austrian school of economics isn’t the obvious best choice? It’s got almost a million hits!”
And here I would have thought “google vomit” referred to the disgusting redirect link you get when you “copy link location” from a google search. I don’t know when this started but I sure wish it would stop.