Forum Moderators: open
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
Commands. The robots is a new non-standard proposal, and you probably should use the Google bot one.
Uncache a page in Google:
Google stores many web pages in its cache to retrieve for users as a back-up in case the page's server temporarily fails. Users can
access the cached version by choosing the "Show Matches" link on the search results page. This can be a very handy service for
users, but some webmasters feel that caching is inappropriate for some sites (for example, some news sites are unhappy when
Google's cached pages reflect "stale" content).
If you do not want your content to be accessible through Google's cache, you can use the NOARCHIVE meta-tag. Place this in the
<HEAD> section of your documents:
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
This tag will tell robots not to archive the page. Google will continue to index and follow links from the page, but will not present
cached material to users. If you want to allow other robots to archive your content, but prevent Google's robots from caching, you
can use the following tag:
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
Also same info here:
[google.com...]
I'd go with the Google bot tag. That is excellent. The robots one is too general and at this point, only Google supports it.
Anyone have any evidence that Google is spidering from non google/google bot ids?
I don't think you want to do that. I have a hunch that Google might ban cloaking URLs/authors for life. Just because a page doesn't show up to users doesn't mean that Google doesn't keep copies. Just a thought.
[edit] sorry, should be a little more specific, this is the link you want to check the "Show cached ..." for, www.ip-delivery.com/foodscript/ the listing for their root page is cached. [/edit]
Edited by: Air
Ok, I've seen that in google a lot, but didn't connect the dots.
Edited by: littleman
That is part of the reason Google for the Google cache. They block the data from ever getting to the web site.
Cache busting image counters...here we come.
aigman wrote, "Just because a page doesn't show up to users doesn't mean that Google doesn't keep copies."
I was thinking about this. People have argued that the publicly caching and displaying pages without the consent of they site owner may be legal. By providing the above meta tags google is able to argue that they have provided the option for people to not appear in their cache system. I doubt google will take the legal risk of displaying pages that webmasters clearly do not want cached.
Who will confess to using NOARCHIVE? How is it working?
It was actually the question of how to get out of the cache that brought me to WebmasterWorld in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that link:url is broken in Google at the moment. I've got a better PageRank than you might expect.
<meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOARCHIVE"></meta>
Go look as some of the top competitive phrases/kw's, all but the mega sites are cached. Some of the larger sites don't allow caching, but most do. It is pretty rare to find a no-cache tag on those top kw's. With so many corporations property sensitized, I'd think there would be more NOCACHE tags coming from them.
Google really only came onto my radar screen last Fall. It wasn't until November that I really became aware of the cache and what it did for (against) me. It wasn't until January that I decided to see if I could do something about it. I tend to be a bit more aware than most webmasters. So I think that most just don't know about it.
Oddly enough, it was Google who pointed me here (this exact thread), which showed me how to defeat Google.
I see no evidence of the no-cache tag hurting ranking per say, but it is like screeming "Hay look at me! I'm a professional SEO, come see if I am worthy of
being in your database."
Google has gone on record saying that the tag would not in it's self affect ranking, but they have said nothing about using it for profiling.
I'm still on the fence as to use it or not. Is it worth using if the only difference between the pages (cloaked) is they do not contain any graphics?
doh!~ I see your comment was in reference to the very first post!
I dunno. In some ways it closely parallels the opt-in vs. opt-out debate on email. For example, what if dozens of different sites 'cached' your site and allowed you to remove it with individual requests or proprietary tags? How about hundreds of 'cachers'? Thousands? Millions? It would get ugly, as this system fails the test of universal acceptance, even if we disregard the ethical issues involved with a single instance of 'caching' (which are considerable).
Hope this didn't disrupt the flow, but I had to state that the Google love-in ends where the cache begins. They have worked out brilliant win/win solutions for design & advertising, and, of course, Web search, but not for the cache. yet???
(we know return you to your regularly scheduled "Disabling the Google Cache" discussion)
Tom
I'm reclutant to post my "great" terms but
I have a top 10 position for:
keyword selection
yahoo search tips
search engine positioning
how to make door page for web positioning
aggressive search positioning
These pages have the tag:
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
They seem to be "sticking" in their positions since the last update
