| 1:02 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've noticed this to some degree as well, I've also noticed cache dates don't match what was actually on a page during that particular day. In once instance, it was off by several days. (Cached page was several days older than the date displayed.)
| 2:00 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> I clicked on the "Cached" link for result it doesn't show me the cache but instead says "Sorry, no content found for this URL". <<
I see that on some IPs and not others. I tried the same search on 6 different IPs, then clicked to view the cache of one particular site. On two IPs there were no results available. I guess that not every machine has the full index all of the time.
I also clicked the cache for www.domain.it/folder/page.html and was given the cache for www.keyword.domain.it/page.html and the cache was announced as being that of www.keyword.domain.it/page.html toom, where both URLs are two ways to access the same content on the same physical server. Google knows they are duplicates and has only one cache for the pair.
[edited by: g1smd at 2:04 pm (utc) on Feb. 24, 2005]
| 2:02 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was surprised to see on one of the IPs, on Feb 19th, that the cache date was announced as being 10th Feb but the cached page had the date 19th Feb on the copy of the stored page.
| 3:08 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Funny: Only pages on "Supplemental results" seem to have cache.
| 3:20 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It appears to me they have some issues of running multiple sets of data and mixing up the results. Our main site can be found with a one year old title and description. But the actual cache is only one day old. database 101 don't run multiple databases (of the same data) unless you can have them sync with each other based on a unique identifier. It appears they have multiple indexes that are hoplessly out of sync. They have little choice but to pick one and run with it. IMO
| 4:10 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
All caches seem to be hosed now. Including googles own site, yahoo, msn, etc.
| 5:25 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Also, supplemental results are back to where they should: gone to the end of SERPS
Something is going on
This is big....
Why isn't this thread picking up?
Google seems to be fixing a lot of issues from the last two years.
| 6:06 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I did notice the strange happening this morning. I can't explain what is going on. I actually expected this to be the hot topic. -- Appears to be across the board on all my sites. Cache gone for about half my pages.
| 6:42 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You would think more people would have picked up on this. They did something just not sure what. Most caches are back but some are still not correct. I would suspect more changes.
| 6:49 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
all my cached stuff is almost a whole year old from what it should be.
I think some poor soul typed in 2004 when they should have typed 2005 over at the plex.
| 6:56 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Eastern Google PR savings time. Didn't you set your calendar back. Your are not alone my friend. Many have this issue and don't realize it. Which I assume means many are ranking in the results based on year old data.
| 6:58 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
no I don't think so
All my snippets are up to date and many pages that are new show in the serps. They just don't have a cache.
| 7:26 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When looking through the cache pages I found that the ones that are redirects give me the error.
I have a lot of pages for one of my sites that upon clicking on the link in google I end up at amazon and not the page that is listed.
| 7:34 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In case your trying to find a trend Sam, thats not the case for my pages. I have around 40-60k (depends on the time of day ) indexed
| 7:56 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A friend of mine had his email address printed on one of the pages of his site. Google indexed the page. Shoertly after, my friend started receiving spam and junk mail so I advised that he removed the email address from the page, which he did: last summer.
Google has cached the new version of the page, sans email address, many times since then. The Google cache does not show the email address as being on the page any more.
However, if you do a Google search for the email address, then you'll get one result: the page that it used to be on, but get this... the email address, the one that is not on the real page, and not in the cache is printed in the snippet.
How's that work?
In case you think that is an isolated example, let me tell you that I know of FIVE sites where this has happened.
| 8:14 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is a very widespread but also unknow. Google seems to have multiple result sets. Depending on how you find the page. I have seen many year old caches for sites not ranking. Using commands like site: link: etc reveals cache as expected. Multiple caches for the same site. The title and description dates back around 1 year. Sites with this issue will only rank for the page that existed last year. It is something only google can fix. But first they will need to admit they have a problem. They have basic database problems and don't want anyone to know there is a problem. They have adopted the admit to no problems policy. Others who are not affected will tell you to quit whinning and make a better site. Not possible to work in the past. They need to choose a database and loose the others. They are trying to sync them and who knows maybe they will. But I suspect they are a bit resistant to admitting to a problem. They have been silent for so long it makes me wonder what else is going on.
| 8:26 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|In once instance, it was off by several days. (Cached page was several days older than the date displayed.) |
they're trying to fix the 1969 cache date thingy?
| 8:33 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The 1969 thingy is possibly related. But it has it's own set of unique problems. That is the UNIX date for a non-existent date. This presents some interesting puzzles. How can you update a cache that doesn't exist? It would require non-logical computing which could cause a computer to puke. This one could have them stumped.
| 8:38 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For me it started with just a few cached pages, but at this point I cannot see any cache for any page what-so-ever.
I doubt it would require all of this to fix the 1969 issue. I don't think the 1969 issue was all that big (it just means they couldn't determine the date).
Although you have to wonder - Why couldn't they determine the date. I know that this digs up an old topic - but what would happen if their database ran out of space? would new data overwrite the old (hence the date for a page going MIA).
I'm not sure how many of the IP's this is happening on - I don't really care to be honest, but ever search I've done over the past 2 days has yielded these errors, and i know I've been hitting more than 1 IP, so it doesn't seem isolated.
Why doesn't google just take off that cache link temporarily until they resolve the issue. It looks tacky and will probably only perpetuate rumors of the overloaded database theory.
|How can you update a cache that doesn't exist? |
Problem solving 101: Before fixing something, be sure of what cuased the error in the 1st place, then set rules in place to ensure the same error cannot happen again.
With that in mind - What would cause Google to have lost the string or piece of information that kepts record of the date, on a wide scale?
| 8:50 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Another question to ask is: Just how important is the date anyway?
It could be irrelevant…
But the date could also be part of their algorithm or used to generate the database unique identifier.
This could lead to some interesting calculations.
| 9:00 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Another question to ask is: Just how important is the date anyway? |
I think it's quite important. If I am reading some material, I like to know when it was published - if that isn't available on the page, then at least the date it was last crawled is available (well sometimes, but not now)... it's not the published date, but if it's a news article it will at least let me know if it's a week or so old or whatever.
| 10:28 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Cache results are changing today. Most sites have no cache at this moment. Others have very old cache.
| 10:40 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Cache results are changing today. Most sites have no cache at this moment. Others have very old cache. |
thanks for the update
| 10:46 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For pages that I see cached daily, for at least the last year, they were all up to date earlier today.
I just checked again, and in the last few minutes the Feb 23 @ 03:00 UTC cache date has updated to Feb 24 @ 03:00 UTC (or sometime about that hour). This happens every night sometime betweeen 22:00 UTC and 01:00 UTC.
I only see missing cache in a few sporadic IPs, not widespread.
| 10:49 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Holy moo. Just found this odd result.
If I hit reload on a cache dated 23rd Feb it changes to 17 Feb.
Every time I hit reload again, it changes to the other one.
This is for a site that I expected the cache date to update to 24 Feb, sometime about now; and still expect it to do so in the next hour or two.
| 11:02 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
They seem to be shifting between two or more result sets. Sites appear and disappear in masses. Including PR10 sites like google.com have had no cache. They then reappear suddenly. When google.com has no cache my site has cache from march 24 2004. When the high PR sites reappear my cache date is normal. I have seen this twice today.
| 11:03 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I continue to see NO cache at all.
No old cache, no weird dates, ZERO!
I had not realized how much I use the cache feature in my own serches until today.
| 12:29 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, for the site with changing cache date (17th//23rd Feb) every time you hit refresh on one of the 66... datacentres (both are version 2 of that page), I found that the cache date for the site has reverted back to March 2004 (which is version 1 of the page) at: [126.96.36.199...] - the snippet shows version 2 of the page though. Site is usually cached every day on google.com.
I wonder if the cache is reverting, simply because the new page uploaded 24 hours ago (version 3) has LESS on it?
<edit>For my other "cached daily" website there is no cache on this particular 64... datacentre; even though the "Fresh date" just updated from 22 Feb to 23 Feb just an hour or so ago. Looks like this IP has a very old, incomplete, set of cached pages.</edit>
[edited by: g1smd at 12:56 am (utc) on Feb. 25, 2005]
| 12:38 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I tried to post a separate topic the other day on this and a few other things that are going on - not my sites but at least for most of the keywords I monitor the SERPs results have dropped a good 65% of the results - ones that normally have 360 million results now have 65 million - I also noticed that Yahoo backlinks are different between some datacenters and have seen more than a "freshie" update going on in some sectors - may be a part of this reverting/rollbackof the database - but most of the indicators Im seeing (other than the cache issues) are all predecessors to an update (or at least in the past have been within a few days prior to an update)
| This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 (  2 ) > > |