homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.7.136
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google Displaying Cached Date as Dec 1969
What does this means
kamran mohammed




msg:90132
 2:54 am on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)

hi...
Google is showing cache date as 31 dec 1969 for one of my site. what does this means....as much as i know...google was never existed at that time.....LOL...

wel any guess!

KaMran

 

outrun




msg:90133
 5:07 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

In Unix based systems the timestamp is measured from 00:00:00 January 1st 1970. 31st of December 1969 usually stands for a non existent date, don't know what that would tell you in regards to google.

regards,
Mark

jnmconsulting




msg:90134
 5:17 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

my thought is that it is a flag for the system or BOT to check the site. Generally with databases most, every database admin that I know use that date as a marker for a date field.

DavidT




msg:90135
 7:59 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

It's just like an error code, it means they can't give the correct date. for whatever reason.

GodLikeLotus




msg:90136
 8:35 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think you will find the 1969 date is only on Supplemental Result.

DotBum




msg:90137
 6:47 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

<speculation>
When they icreased the database size they have in some way poured all the info into one database and got some sort of merge error in the date field of the supplemental database?
</speculation>

Outside of the technical reasons I don't think it's of any consequence - how or why you find your pages in the supplemental index seems more pressing - it is for me at the moment anyway! :)

GoogleGuy




msg:90138
 6:57 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

I mentioned it to a few folks here, and I'll ask them to check it out and see if they can get the crawl date to percolate all the way to the cached page display.

Google does not, repeat not, have a Time Machine. :)

encyclo




msg:90139
 7:05 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

outrun's already explained it, but I gave a more technical answer in this other thread [webmasterworld.com].

I've never seen it myself, but I suppose the occasional glitch in saving/reading the date field is going to happen. Nothing sinister.

Of course, there is ample proof that Google has actually been around since the early 1960s:

[webmasterworld.com...]

;)

kamran mohammed




msg:90140
 7:26 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

i mentioned it to a few folks here, and I'll ask them to check it out and see if they can get the crawl date to percolate all the way to the cached page display.
Google does not, repeat not, have a Time Machine. :)

Hi everyone once agian

What does it mean by this....

it was a few days back when i have seen the timestamp in the cache snapshot of my webpage....and i was curious to know abt it......and i thought it will be fine in time...but i think.....Google shd crawl once again in this decade to give me the correct date.....lol

Thanxs

KaMran

DerekH




msg:90141
 11:35 pm on Dec 6, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Google does not, repeat not, have a Time Machine"

liar!

I heard you say that next week....
DerekH

Liane




msg:90142
 2:33 am on Dec 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well ... it may be a bug as suggested in another thread, but I think it may be a bug associated with and indicating a penalized page.

I've had something similar but with a particular page listed in site:mysite.com twice.

I think this may explain why the number of pages reported in any given web site are sometimes inflated by a substantial number. If the date stamp is wrong on one page listing and correct on another (even though its the exact same page being listed) .. this could be part of the "2004 Google - Searching 8,058,044,651 web pages" suddenly appearing overnight!

See: [webmasterworld.com ]

walkman




msg:90143
 2:55 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

so far (with what I've seen), only penalized /dupe pages have this. My index of one site has been indexed with?tracking_tags 3 times and those have that date. The index doesn't.

jgold454




msg:90144
 3:02 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

I see it in supplemental results....

Jon_King




msg:90145
 3:32 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>My index of one site has been indexed with?tracking_tags 3 times and those have that date.

I have those variables attached to a few page urls as well. One had a 'name' in the var and I tracked it to a penalized site. Probably a coincidence. I did search the entire site looking for the text and it's not from our pages.

SlyOldDog




msg:90146
 3:46 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

This is front page news?

Lorel




msg:90147
 4:18 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)



so far (with what I've seen), only penalized /dupe pages have this. My index of one site has been indexed with?tracking_tags 3 times and those have that date. The index doesn't.

Same here with my site and some of my clients, but not just with tracking code. I've also seen it occur with a site with legitimate redirects from someon'es old site to their new one. That sounds harmless but this site is on a shared IP address with another unrelated site (my client) and the listing appearing in Google's "allinurl:" "www.domain.com" and "site:" searches with a redirect going from the one site to my client's site. Looked like a deliberate redirect but apparently just a google bug with a bogus date.

Rugles




msg:90148
 4:31 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>>1969 was a popular year for the summer of love

I don't want to be picky, but the summer of love was 1967 not 1969.

artdog




msg:90149
 4:35 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

I had this show up on a couple pages that got uploaded by mistake before finishing them. Took them off they but still show as indexed and with the 1969 date. All other pages on site show current dates.

Jon_King




msg:90150
 5:49 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>I had this show up on a couple pages that got uploaded by mistake before finishing them.

All the pages I see are the same... just junk that is lurking on the server and 'somehow' indexed. Seems the 1969 date means cleaning time...

DaveAtIFG




msg:90151
 8:47 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

This (and other unusual cache dates I've seen) suggests Google is keeping "date cached" info for each page they spider. I suspect Dec '69 is the default date assigned the first time a page is cached.

kamran mohammed




msg:90152
 5:08 am on Dec 9, 2004 (gmt 0)

This (and other unusual cache dates I've seen) suggests Google is keeping "date cached" info for each page they spider. I suspect Dec '69 is the default date assigned the first time a page is cached.

I think Dave is correct..
That might be the default date...

KaMran....:)

Liane




msg:90153
 2:40 pm on Dec 9, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think this is indicative of a larger root problem. When searching site:mysite.com I am getting supplemental results with a cache date of December 31, 1969 for pages which have not been in existence for over a year! They were deleted ages ago!

DerekH




msg:90154
 3:23 pm on Dec 9, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think this is indicative of a larger root problem. When searching site:mysite.com I am getting supplemental results with a cache date of December 31, 1969 for pages which have not been in existence for over a year! They were deleted ages ago!

Ah yes - and the presence of a cache date - or at least a published one - is a fairly recent development.

I wonder if, when they've dredged up all these old pages, they've no date to associate with them?
DerekH

walkman




msg:90155
 4:31 pm on Dec 9, 2004 (gmt 0)

"I don't want to be picky, but the summer of love was 1967 not 1969"

don't be hatin'...some just kept going :)

mrjeff




msg:90156
 8:02 am on Dec 10, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi everyone,
I've been a lurker for awhile. :)

The same is for the bot,
This appears in my logs all the time:

mediapartners-google/2.131-12-1969 19:33:24

I think it is just a default date.

Jeff

seolancer




msg:90157
 12:38 pm on Dec 10, 2004 (gmt 0)

hi

i'm also getting same cache date 31 Dec 1969 23:59:59 GMT.

for one of my webpage...

pata




msg:90158
 5:42 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

O.K. I have a web site.....
<snip>
It has had the Dec 1969 cached date for over 8 weeks.
I have made significant changes to the site to help my rankings, but google has not come back to crawl the site since I noticed the 1969 date.

I would be shocked to learn that this is a penalty. I am using only "white-hat" tactics for my optimization, and the industry is not TOO competitive.
Besides Yahoo, MSN and MSN-Beta have all picked up the changes and love them.

I am assuming (and hoping) that when Google eventually crawls my site again this problem will go away. BUT will google ever crawl my site again.

I has already been over 2 months.

Is anyone else STILL experiencing this problem?
Any suggestions on how to get out of it?
I have tried waiting, now I need to try something else.

Thanks,
Pat

[edited by: lawman at 11:31 pm (utc) on Jan. 13, 2005]
[edit reason] No URLs Please [/edit]

MLHmptn




msg:90159
 6:09 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Forget about Google and focus your efforts on the other search engines. Google is broke and it doesn't seem they want or care to fix it!

Check your site on MSN, Yahoo, Teoma and the like and I'll bet your site is listed just fine!

It's time to stop focusing our efforts on Google as they don't seem to care anymore unless of course your paying them for adwords or adsense.

Put adsense on your site and get a few hundred links to target your key term and WALLA, #1-#5 in google in no time! You don't even need any content, just get them backlinks and Google will reward you.

Google is quickly becoming a joke.

MLHmptn

Spine




msg:90160
 6:53 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Liane, the pages being introduced to the index that you deleted long ago are an effort to artificially make it seem like the index has grown overnight to 8 billion.

Lots of pages that don't exist have been added to the index, an act of desperation, or a serious bug.

Take your pick.

MLHmptn




msg:90161
 7:46 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Liane, the pages being introduced to the index that you deleted long ago are an effort to artificially make it seem like the index has grown overnight to 8 billion.
Lots of pages that don't exist have been added to the index, an act of desperation, or a serious bug.

Take your pick.

Precisely! MSN introduces their new search engine and WALLA, Google suddenly has to beat it even though their claims are entirely false. The real index does not include "Supplemental Results" unless of course your searching for that particular page and tell me if I'm wrong here but what is the point in indexing it if the searcher already knows about that page?

Bring the heat MSN!

MLHmptn

This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved