| 8:19 pm on Jul 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
What are the differences that you see?
| 8:23 pm on Jul 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I've not noticed it before so I don't know 100% for sure if it's new, but it looks like if there's a background color on a cached page, the color is going all the way up to the top of the cache page.
| 8:37 pm on Jul 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It looks a lot cleaner. A lot simpler. I never noticed the "text only" link before. That's new isn't it?
| 8:42 pm on Jul 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I never noticed the "text only" link before. That's new isn't it? |
That's been there for ages.
It is much cleaner.
| 8:56 pm on Jul 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|That's been there for ages. |
Alright then. It's certainly a lot more noticeable now.
| 9:01 pm on Jul 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I am not 100% on the links that were there yesterday as I did it a kazillion times but you know I just didn't pay much attention to it. I do now the Learn More link was not there. The time stamp wasn't there, font sizes changed and the background color is differnet.
I see mine has updated to the current last crawl so I am assuming Google was putting this new cache into place as to why the old cache's people were reporting.
| 5:13 am on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
<Moved from another location>
See a cached page of Google.
You will notice its massage has been shorter than before.
Turned to be very simple.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 5:46 am (utc) on July 25, 2008]
| 2:08 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
To keep your page out of the Google republication of the internet just add this to the <head> section of your pages:
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
| 2:09 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I saw that too. I like it a lot more than the old white block on the screen.
| 2:11 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|To keep your page out of the Google republication... |
Awww... come-on Brett. There are so many people who do IP delivery but don't ever think of putting that tag on their pages. :)
| 2:41 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I'm glad they changed it as the old one often used styles associated with the cached page it was looking at. This way is far clearer and a great improvement.
| 3:19 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
What are the potential risks of Google Cache?
I have one question...
Google, why are you spending so much time developing the cache area? Who uses that? I'm not aware of many consumers who use cache so what is the purpose of making it look pretty?
| 3:46 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
text only eh ... wow .. now easier for the scrapers to steal just the text. lovely.
| 4:01 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I use the cache to find what I'm looking for a page. Since Google highlights my search term, it can be handy on heavy text pages. I also use the cache when the real site is down or the page/site doesn't exist any longer. I figure it will probably disappear from the cache or results soon so I look at it briefly if I need information. But most normal consumers probably don't use it this way.
| 5:18 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
My home page cache has become uncached not showing now. I have gone to a couple other sites were there the home page is as well uncached.
Rest of my pages I checked are cached just the home page isn't.
| 5:44 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Hasn't anybody clicked on the Learn More feature. I don't recall all that info being there in the past. Seems like that would cause even more bandwidth usage with the advertising.
| 10:20 pm on Jul 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
"text only eh ... wow .. now easier for the scrapers to steal just the text."
That's always been available.
| 1:34 am on Jul 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing the alt image text in the text only cache version. I do not think they were displaying that before.
| 7:13 am on Jul 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It has been like that before now.
| 9:55 am on Jul 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
*** Google, why are you spending so much time developing the cache area? ***
It could be something as simple as reducing the HTML code, so saving a few hundred GigaBytes of bandwidth per day.
| 3:29 pm on Jul 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
When using Google Webmaster Tools it reads "Googlebot last successfully accessed your home page on Jul 13, 2008"
When in fact it has visited my home page several times this past week when reviewing my log files. I guess something is wrong with cache updates. When viewing my site on google and viewing the cached page it indeed has the 13th date. Even though I tweak my homepage with a few minor updates weekly over the last two weeks the cached page has stayed the same when typically it would update in a few days.
Just as a test I was wondering if I used <META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE"> how fast googlebot would respect it given the fact it visits my homepage nearly daily and since it is not updating the cached pages as it probably should be. Perhaps if I noarchive the page and then remove the meta tag the next day if I could force a cached update. Anyone here ever tried this? Thanks
| 4:10 pm on Jul 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I guess something is wrong with cache updates. |
Something has been wrong with the WMT reports altogether. We've got several active threads about it, including this one WMT - Web crawl glitch [webmasterworld.com]
| 10:05 am on Jul 31, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Well its been around 2-3 weekds guys Google changed the display of its cached pages, and it has adapted a much more similar look of cached layout of Yahoo!,
and yeah the link for cached page text version, 've always been the there, now the difference is that only, its much clear and right aligned to look different ;-)
| 12:54 pm on Aug 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
q: What has been your experience with the new look of the cached page?
A- reduced click through
B- increased click through
C- push - the same.
| 2:35 pm on Aug 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The following message was cut out to new thread by engine. New thread at: google/3718607.htm [webmasterworld.com]
4:38 pm on Aug. 8, 2008 (utc +1)