dragonlady7 - 2:22 am on Jul 10, 2003 (gmt 0)
... which is why if you don't want your stuff cached you use the cache tag. I personally love the Google cache feature; it's saved my a** a number of times when the page I desperately wanted to see was offline temporarily or permanently and I just could not find the information anywhere else. And it was never a case of me finding something for free I'd have to pay for elsewhere; it's things that only one person ever made a webpage about and then they graduated and their student account was shut down or whatever.
I think Google's cacheing is invaluable for a number of purposes and I can completely understand why they do it.
I think the vast majority of google's users, both webmasters and readers, find the cache Google keeps an invaluable service. As a writer, I don't mind if Google keeps a cache because not only do they make abundantly clear the location of the original, they also leave the copyright information intact. If someone copies my content, puts it on their site, and removes any reference to its original location or author, then that violates my copyright and is just plain rude. But if someone makes a copy available in case my server's down? Guaranteeing that I show up for a search I'm relevant for? Allowing someone to read what I've written, even if my website's not up or my redirect isn't working?
I fail to see how that's a problem on general principle.
And if it is a problem, it's something you're likely to be aware of as a problem, and therefore something that you're likely to be able to proactively take steps to avoid. Adding a simple NOCACHE tag is a perfectly reasonable precaution to take, and anyone who thinks it isn't probably has a considerable amount to gain by the lawsuit.