| 8:53 am on Apr 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I use a lot of absolute positioning, and I let Google sort it out as best they can. Some pages I no-cache, but not all by any means.
Bottom line for me is that I will NOT consider the Google cache to be yet another browser that I must write compatible code for.
| 9:07 am on Apr 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Actually, I'm yet to find someone who isn't a web designer (of some sort) that knows the Google cache even exists...
| 9:21 am on Apr 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
That's what I always thought, too, Josh. Until the Director at my biggest contract called me.
Actually he thought that it was his site - he ALWAYS clicks on the Google cache link...because he wants the site in his cache!!??! So he was upset at the way some of his pages were displaying.
| 9:37 am on Apr 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You might try assigning a z-index value to the layers at the top of your pages. Even layers that are set using position:absolute. I've done this in the past and was able to ensure my page layers display ON-TOP of the Google/Cache Box instead of the other way around.
In any case, I don't sweat it... it IS only a cached page after all. I imagine before long Google will adapt their code to accomodate CSS-P.
| 12:28 pm on Apr 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the replies.
I've actually got divs sitting on top of a tabled-out template, but a thought (a la papabaer) occurred later on that wrapping everything in the template in a div might solve the problem (until I can get around to making the template non-table).
As far as not bothering about the cache goes, I was struck by Brett's comment a year ago about how many people might just hit the back button when they see a broken layout.
| 4:03 pm on Apr 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE"> ?