Google for lame bloggers

March 16th, 2005 | Category: humor

I was talking to my friend/boss Gever this morning about how often small blogs go through “dry spells” where the only post is an apology for not posting more often. He mentioned that it would be funny to find the google query that would find all of them, and I thought that would make a great post. So here you go: Google for lame bloggers. Or try Technorati to see who hasn’t posted most recently.

I somehow manage to avoid showing up on the list. I’ll chalk it up to my refreshingly original writing style when posting my own lamer apology. :)

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit

8 Comments so far

  1. julie March 16th, 2005 10:32 am

    2,370,000 hits _exactly_. i’m tempted to start a blog just so i can write an entry that says “it’s been a while since you’ve heard from me” so i can find out if that’s a hard google limit or a message from the cosmos.

  2. Frank Pape March 18th, 2005 9:23 am

    Wow, now it’s 2,380,000. Sounds like 10,000 other people read this post since then and thought the exact same thing. ;)

  3. mamamusings March 21st, 2005 3:55 pm

    slacker tracking

    A former student of mine, now part of the tech corps in SF, has a funny post on his site. He constructed Google and Technorati queries to find all the people who’ve posted something along the lines of “sorry I haven’t been posting mor…

  4. Cynical-C Blog March 21st, 2005 8:46 pm

    Google For Lame Bloggers

    I don’t think I am guilty of this…. yet. I was talking to my friend/boss Gever this morning about how often small blogs go through “dry spells” where the only post is an apology for not posting more often. He…

  5. enschede a/zee March 22nd, 2005 3:12 am

    Luie Bloggers

    Google haven’t “a while” (updated OR posted OR blogged) en je zult zien dat bloggers vaak te lui zijn om hun weblog te updaten

  6. Liz Lawley March 22nd, 2005 5:56 am

    Just now it was “about 2,690,000″ (they generally add the “about” on large result sets, so I assume they’re rounding). The number stays the same if I add “+” to each of the terms to make them required.

  7. Frank Pape March 22nd, 2005 8:27 am

    Harrumph. Well, I guess only your DBA knows for sure. :-)

  8. beth March 23rd, 2005 5:31 pm

    What a hilarious idea . . . and great timing, since I’ve just finished my own set of “lamer” posts.

Leave a reply