Having searched for the "Google Web Accelerator Cache Warmer" discovered a post from June 2006.
I had made enquiries about loss of my site in G results on a Google forum.
I "did" stipulate that for my domain that I block many countries (nearly all of APNIC, most of Europe, etc via htaccess file). This was done because too much bad stuff originated from those sources and unfortunate to "innocent parties" that they are caught in the block. But to cure site access log file spamming, harvesting, and many other bad practices, I finally chose this "major effect" option. Don't really care if ASIA and most of Europe cannot access site as it is a US site with not much "general interest" to/for Asia and Europe. And for a friends site (small sales site) same htaccess is used.... they don't do sales out of US.
Back to the point. I mentioned the APNIC and most of Europe being blocked ahead of time in my post to the G groups forum. Turned out "more than one" persons who tried to assist were based in the UK. Of course they were blocked. They also seemingly could not understand why "they" or "innocent parties" would be blocked, well its the old scenario, one bad apple can spoil the bunch.
Checking my log at "about" the time of access for one "forum assistant's" access to my site of course I could see their IP at 81.x.x.x (of course blocked and 403 code) but I also found Google Web Accelerator Cache Warmer" as one access that came through ok. Here is just one log line for same.
65.124.120.nnn - - [02/Jan/2007:10:50:14 -0800] "GET /buttons/select01.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 1096 "http://www.--removedmydomain--.com/" "Mozilla (Google Web Accelerator Cache Warmer; Google-TR-4-GT)"
That G forum person said that he was blocked "for images" but could see my code for a page (I presume normal browser) for the IP entries on 81.x.x.x and he was probably seeing "cached page" source code.
But then I saw the "Accelertor" entry and with IP at 65.x.x.x which is for a business in Mass.US ----
I strongly think that such Google browser enhancement may very well be using proxies around the country or around the world. Seems very logical to me. Rather than a visitor "retrieving" your site pages directly from your own site, in this case visitor in the UK, this browser enhancement may check proxies that have cached different sites, if that is the case then if it finds that a UK "cache" has a copy of your site it would serve from there (whether content is new or old, might even be very old), if it finds instead a cache in Mass US has a copy then would serve from there.
Now, from the June 2006 post it did have the user agent showing as
Mozilla (Google Web Accelerator Cache Warmer; Google-TR-1)
with added comment of IP belongs to Road Runner
see the post at [webmasterworld.com...]
I can only suspect that the "ending portion of the UA" such as Google-TR-1
could be an "indicator" of the visitor source (or nearest Google database).
If that is the case, then the ending portion could very well be quite variable from one visitor to another.
The good part about this, if I am correct, it would mean that this "tool" or "accelerator" does in fact use proxies or "other cached site data bases".
It would also mean that it actually obscures the actual visitors IP. Thus it is an "anonymous" browser.
Now, for persons finding this User Agent in their log files one can consider that it is truly a human doing the browsing (but you won't know from where) so you can allow it as legit, or as I "might decide to do" would be to monitor the various cache IP's to determine where a whole bunch of NON-SE Caches are located and then watch those IP's for their bot activity. If these "non-SE" caches have too much old stuff, then I may as a result just block those from future access by their IP group. In my opinion I don't want lots of "copies" of my site sitting around on independent caches when such cached pages might be old or very old. Plus I don't need or want those extra bots.
I would sooner have good site visitors "not hiding" their IP and activity, and I would sooner have up-to-date copies of my site pages on the "normal" SE's of my choice.
Anyone care to give any feedback or confirmation? Is this actually a browser enhancement that works with non-SE-private-caches and such a tool that provides anonymous browsing (hiding the source IP)?
Think I might be correct but not sure.
JDMorgan if you see this and can give one of your most knowledgeable responses then please post for public but also "sticky" me a short "heads up" on it. Thanks.
[edited by: volatilegx at 9:02 pm (utc) on Jan. 3, 2007]
[edit reason] obfuscated ip address [/edit]