To cache or not to cache

What precisely is the benefit in allowing Google to cache a page

[Phil_Payne]

I've got a number of pages (public service only - no commercial links or intent) that contain reference information such as a list of car torque settings or errata from workshop manuals.

I've got a standard disclaimer on the site saying that these pages should always be refetched - printed or whatever - before use because an error (perhaps affecting safety) could be found and corrected at any time.

Google's cache represents a (minor) exposure in that copies in there can be up to three months old. Perhaps when sitemaps get going I'll be able to control that better.

But in the interim - and also remembering Google is trying to economise on resources - what benefit or otherwise is there for either Google or myself in allowing such pages to be cached or not? I can easily knock them out with a metatag.

[Phil_Payne]

Well, that was a useful little post.

[smoke11]

I'm also interested in this topic, but for a slightly different reason. I've been doing research on libel law and trying to find out whether it's a best practice to prevent caching. (If you publish controversial topics and decide to pull something because it poses a potential legal risk...yes, i know you can still be sued regardless, but if you pull a post -- for any reason -- do you still want it available in cache?) I'd be interested in any views.

Here's another question: If you use the code that Google makes available for preventing caching do other search engines, such as yahoo, recognize it as well and not cache?

Thanks

[jimh009]

I find myself using the Google cache feature very frequently.

The reason for this is because of the explosion in page length on many sites, in particular blogs.

If i'm looking for a particular nugget of information, the last thing I want to do is to read a huge blog post to find that tidbit of information.

Google's cache allows me to find that information without reading an article top to bottom - as I can just scroll to where Google has highlighted the information.

I've found the cache feature much less useful on typical "content pages", that are about one type of content. However, on blogs, where multi-content is everywhere, the cache feature is a big time saver.

[Phil_Payne]

As far as libel law is concerned - search on my name and Godfrey in the demon.service newsgroup.

You cannot be sued for libel in the UK as the inadvertent publisher of a libel provided you adhere to the "notify and take down" procedure.

The potentially libelled informs you - probably via lawyers - of what they consider libellous and you take it down.

I'd be careful with switching off caching selectively, i.e., just on "contentious" articles because that way you have already admitted concern over the content and eroded you own defence. Same principle as never reading patents unless you're a patent lawyer.

As long as you conform to "notify and take down" you're reasonably safe. It costs around two hundred grand to get into court, so the local car dealer isn't going to sue.

Product libel is even worse because the complainant has to prove actual pecuniary loss. I'm sure MacDonalds regrets suing the pamphlet pair.

Truth is almost always a defence. But you would be AMAZED at the complexity of the legal argument in discovery and pretrial before you get into court.