Home > Uncategorized > Are we googling dumb?

Are we googling dumb?


We’re back to stupid again, but this time from a quasi-linguistic approach. I came across Logomancy’s “How dumb is that?” post from last summer and started to wonder if those figures had changed. Are we googling for stupid more this year than last year? 

Googling Dumb as a/an Results

Phrase Logomancy 2008 S.C. 2009
bag of hammers 30700 18200
box of hair  2960 2570
box of hammers  1600 648
box of rocks 36600 52700
bag of rocks 843 9270
bag of hamsters 2 3
a shed 2 2
a post 33900 41200
a stump 35500 13200
a brick 36300 22400
ox  675 767
oyster 18400 3420
elephant 2860 709
“Dumb as a*” 502000 641000

So not clear cut really. Most of the phrases return fewer hits, significantly fewer in many cases, but overall, we’re getting more hits for the start of the phrase. Next step, mapping the regional differences, similar to the pop/soda/coke spread. And, interesting note, the first result that popped up for the first few phrases were for the Logomancy post.

Just so you know, I generally run with “Dumber than a box of hair” (3020 hits), but “dumber than a bag of hamsters” is rather intriguing.

%d bloggers like this: