| 8:40 pm on Nov 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
First, a comment. Even though the cache date is supposed to show the most recent visit, it certainly doesn't always do that. The only true source for that information is in your server logs.
So I'd suggest looking in your server logs and seeing what http response googlebot has been getting - both for that date and others. Also check that the exact url Google has cached here and be sure that it actually resolves as-is.
Another comment - you say "Doesn't show any text." Are you speaking about the link in Google's header that says "Click here for the cached text only"?
Beyond that, this could very well be a Google problem, in which case patience is a virtue. If the url is still bringing in traffic at it's normal rate, then a Googlebug is what I'd assume.
| 11:13 am on Nov 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I am speaking about "Click here for the cached text only".
I think this is due to the dynamic database driven issue.
The site is completely dynamic.
| 4:27 pm on Nov 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Is there content when you first click on the "Cached" link, before you click on "Click here for the cached text only"?
| 9:42 am on Nov 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There is content when i see the cached date. (cache:www.domain.com).
It's showing a the snapshot of the page. But when i click on the Cached text doesn't show anything.
| 12:22 pm on Nov 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Interesting, I wonder what would cause that. I tested several sites and the text only cache worked fine...
| 10:22 am on Nov 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It might sound stupid, but do you use black background?
If u do the text will be black as default meaning it is there but u will be able to see it only if you press Ctrl+A....
| 12:26 pm on Nov 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
No black background. The case is different here.
| 5:28 am on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have done mod rewrite of url for my dynamic site. The site is completely designed with asp.net.
The url structure is:
Is it spiderable? or should i use .html at the end of the url.?
How can i optimize this dynamic site?
[edited by: tedster at 5:30 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2007]
[edit reason] switch to example.com - it can never be owned [/edit]
| 5:33 am on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Those urls are definitely spiderable - and it's a GOOD thing not expose your underlying technology with a .html extension, or .aspx or whatever. If you ever do change your platform you won't have to change your urls, which can be quite problematic in some cases.
Just one note - if this is a page and not a directory index, then it is better not to end with the final forward slash. Reserve that for cases where the url does point to a directory's index.
| 6:26 am on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
All pages are rewritten like that. [computers.example.com...]
is it harmful? or what is the advantage of not having slash at the end?
| 7:03 am on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If /anytext/ is really a page and not a true directory index, then any relative links on that page can be resolved by the user agent or spider as a deeper subdirectory -- one level further "down" the tree. I've seen this kind of spidering gradually build up 404s that eventually poisoned rankings for some sites.
There's also a potential duplicate url issue. If /anytext and /anytext/ both resolve to the same content, you can have duplicate troubles eventually.
You can reduce these two concerns by 1) not ever using any relative links anywhere on the site and 2) making sure that your server uses a 301 redirect to add the trailing slash to any request that comes in without one.
There may be other potential problems as well. I prefer to stick with the simpler convention of "no trailing slash for a page" whenever I can.
Also, those urls may be OK, but they certainly do have a lot of apparent gibberish in them. I'd be concerned that it isn't all needed and that you can resolve some urls without all the "directories" in them, or by changing a "directory" nam to something else. Definitely give a "kick test" to those urls and make 100% sure that exactly and only one version resolves.
All of which is getting pretty far afield from your original issue about no "cached text". Has that situation changed yet?
| 9:13 am on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The Google Cached issue is not solved.
I am still seeking answer why cached text is not showing?
Please help me.