| 2:10 am on Jun 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Nice find! May I ask where you found it?
| 5:24 am on Jun 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I found it:
Uncache a page in Google:
Google stores many web pages in its cache to retrieve for users as a back-up in case the page's server temporarily fails. Users can
access the cached version by choosing the "Show Matches" link on the search results page. This can be a very handy service for
users, but some webmasters feel that caching is inappropriate for some sites (for example, some news sites are unhappy when
Google's cached pages reflect "stale" content).
If you do not want your content to be accessible through Google's cache, you can use the NOARCHIVE meta-tag. Place this in the
<HEAD> section of your documents:
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
This tag will tell robots not to archive the page. Google will continue to index and follow links from the page, but will not present
cached material to users. If you want to allow other robots to archive your content, but prevent Google's robots from caching, you
can use the following tag:
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
Also same info here:
| 6:13 am on Jun 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Hey thanks. I got it elsewhere - I didn't know that was online. The faq has been updated.
I'd go with the Google bot tag. That is excellent. The robots one is too general and at this point, only Google supports it.
| 2:59 pm on Jun 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Thank you two. So, does this mean we can cloak for Google now? Is it even worth it?
| 10:07 am on Jun 29, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Yes, and here, I think it is worth it.
Anyone have any evidence that Google is spidering from non google/google bot ids?
| 8:41 am on Jul 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
> So, does this mean we can cloak for Google now?
I don't think you want to do that. I have a hunch that Google might ban cloaking URLs/authors for life. Just because a page doesn't show up to users doesn't mean that Google doesn't keep copies. Just a thought.
| 8:09 pm on Jul 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I just want to know if it works! I can't find any examples of the google tags at use. Has anyone else? I've looked at the most competitive kws I could think of and so far no luck.
| 8:15 pm on Jul 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Go look at the listing for ip-delivery.com at google you'll see an example.
 sorry, should be a little more specific, this is the link you want to check the "Show cached ..." for, www.ip-delivery.com/foodscript/ the listing for their root page is cached. [/edit]
Edited by: Air
| 11:26 pm on Jul 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
So, in cases when the NOARCHIVE tag is used it meta refreshes to the page! Wow, very cool.
Ok, I've seen that in google a lot, but didn't connect the dots.
Edited by: littleman
| 3:30 am on Jul 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Yeah it is kinda cool isn't it, now I'm just waiting to see what kind of IP and agent shows up in the logs from the refresh. It breaks the frame when it refreshes so it should be the visitor's agent and IP.
| 2:46 pm on Jul 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
And the referer? It is probably going to get tossed out by many browsers.
That is part of the reason Google for the Google cache. They block the data from ever getting to the web site.
Cache busting image counters...here we come.
| 4:53 pm on Jul 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Brett, that is definitely BAD news! It can make billing a nightmare, I bet most people will just write off that traffic.
aigman wrote, "Just because a page doesn't show up to users doesn't mean that Google doesn't keep copies."
I was thinking about this. People have argued that the publicly caching and displaying pages without the consent of they site owner may be legal. By providing the above meta tags google is able to argue that they have provided the option for people to not appear in their cache system. I doubt google will take the legal risk of displaying pages that webmasters clearly do not want cached.
| 7:40 am on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
It has been over 7 months since this post.
Who will confess to using NOARCHIVE? How is it working?
| 7:57 am on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I'm using it. Works like a charm. See [google.com...] where two of my sites show up in the top 10. You can guess which two they are, because they are only ones not cached. I used ROBOTS, not GOOGLEBOT.
It was actually the question of how to get out of the cache that brought me to WebmasterWorld in the first place.
| 8:56 am on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Interesting. A fairly full kw with not too many links to the site to boot. (where's that xml manual...)
| 9:15 am on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Actually, there are more links to the site than are shown when you do a link:url command. I think this is related to the link:url problem discussion that is going on in this [webmasterworld.com] thread. Most of the top ranked pages have links to my page.
I'm pretty sure that link:url is broken in Google at the moment. I've got a better PageRank than you might expect.
| 1:18 pm on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I placed :
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
in on Feb 8
now the site's cache link is not there
but the rank droped form #1 to #5
the top 5 pages still have the cache link.
| 3:07 pm on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Xoc, what format did you use in robots.txt?
| 8:51 pm on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Didn't use robots.txt. Instead have a meta tag on each page (done with SSIs). I used:
<meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOARCHIVE"></meta>
| 9:30 pm on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I've been using it for several months with no ill effects as of yet. (Fingers crossed)
| 10:33 pm on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Have top 10 under say top one thousand keywords/phrases? Anything killer competititive?
Go look as some of the top competitive phrases/kw's, all but the mega sites are cached. Some of the larger sites don't allow caching, but most do. It is pretty rare to find a no-cache tag on those top kw's. With so many corporations property sensitized, I'd think there would be more NOCACHE tags coming from them.
| 10:47 pm on Feb 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I think that most people, even experts, don't know how to disable the cache. It is not highly publicized.
Google really only came onto my radar screen last Fall. It wasn't until November that I really became aware of the cache and what it did for (against) me. It wasn't until January that I decided to see if I could do something about it. I tend to be a bit more aware than most webmasters. So I think that most just don't know about it.
Oddly enough, it was Google who pointed me here (this exact thread), which showed me how to defeat Google.
| 12:06 am on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
The think to keep in mind is that using the no-cache tag has a very high likelihood if flagging your domain. Think about it from Google's perspective. If you were an SE that was hell-bent on minimizing cloaking / promotional domains you would use the no-cache as a way of flagging domains as possible spammers or cloakers.
I see no evidence of the no-cache tag hurting ranking per say, but it is like screeming "Hay look at me! I'm a professional SEO, come see if I am worthy of
being in your database."
Google has gone on record saying that the tag would not in it's self affect ranking, but they have said nothing about using it for profiling.
| 12:08 am on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Works fine for me. I've been using this tag<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">
| 3:40 am on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Xoc, I'm sorry I misinterpreted I used ROBOTS, not GOOGLEBOT as an indication you implemented the same technique in the robots.txt file. So the MetaTag is the only way then.
I'm still on the fence as to use it or not. Is it worth using if the only difference between the pages (cloaked) is they do not contain any graphics?
doh!~ I see your comment was in reference to the very first post!
| 5:22 am on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
> By providing the above meta tags google is able to argue that they have provided the option for people to not appear in their cache system.
I dunno. In some ways it closely parallels the opt-in vs. opt-out debate on email. For example, what if dozens of different sites 'cached' your site and allowed you to remove it with individual requests or proprietary tags? How about hundreds of 'cachers'? Thousands? Millions? It would get ugly, as this system fails the test of universal acceptance, even if we disregard the ethical issues involved with a single instance of 'caching' (which are considerable).
Hope this didn't disrupt the flow, but I had to state that the Google love-in ends where the cache begins. They have worked out brilliant win/win solutions for design & advertising, and, of course, Web search, but not for the cache. yet???
(we know return you to your regularly scheduled "Disabling the Google Cache" discussion)
| 2:59 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>Anything killer competititive?<
I've got a number one ranking for pre-approved loans and a number 2 ranking for preapproved loans. I consider this a fairly competitive phrase and they both use the
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE"> tag.
| 3:25 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Anything killer competititive
I'm reclutant to post my "great" terms but
I have a top 10 position for:
yahoo search tips
search engine positioning
how to make door page for web positioning
aggressive search positioning
These pages have the tag:
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
They seem to be "sticking" in their positions since the last update
| 4:09 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
This tag could be very helpful in sites which are dynamically generated. My company is moving toward dynamic pages and with Google now indexing those I think we'll be in good shape, and now with the NoCache tag Google will have to call up the most recent page, thus allowing the dynamic publishing to be most effective. Certainly worth playing with.
| This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: 42 (  2 ) > > |