Cache Links - webcache.googleusercontent.com not IP address. Is this new?
2:03 am on Mar 24, 2010 (gmt 0)
Just noticing today this webcache.googleusercontent.com over the cache links below SERP's. Is this new? Can someone shed some light on this?
9:00 pm on Mar 24, 2010 (gmt 0)
It's new to me - even now I see a numeric IP address for the cache links, rather than this subdomain. It does seem to be served from the same IP block, though,
7:47 pm on Mar 28, 2010 (gmt 0)
What's even more strange is the fact that I'm not logged in, no cookies are set and no matter what browser I'm using it's still the same. Also it has resolved to two different IP's for me during the week (220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168). After almost a week now I have not seen a single IP on a cache link even though if I type the IP in it works as usual (google caffeine IP for instance 22.214.171.124) and shows the IP cache link. Also since this has happened by using known DC tools they are returning automated query faults from Google when checking allin operators. Surprised to see not many are noticing this yet. At first I was thinking adward, spyware, etc but googleusercontent is owned by Google. This is only happening on one of our WANS (connected to comcast) where as two other networks are still recieving cache links by IP. MC...Where are you to shed some light?! :)
Anyone else thinking googleusercontent.com, why the domain name?
webcache. subdomain, okay, it's obviously the cache, so why the need to access a page with the name 'search' and a query sting to say 'access the cache' too?
It's almost looks like they are planning (are already?) using it for something else too, because it would be simple and shorter to remove the page name and the q=cache from the query string since the subdomain is obviously for the web cache, so it's almost looks like they need to differentiate to me.
If there's not the need to differentiate, they could simply use: webcache.googleusercontent.com/?Encryption:www.example.com/+OtherStuff
And, why not simply googlewebcache.com?
Maybe I'm reading too much into it though...
7:15 pm on Apr 8, 2010 (gmt 0)
I always assumed they used the IP address to avoid any confusion about the ownership of the content: Google wanted to make it clear that the content was not their's. They seem to have changed their minds.
7:29 am on Apr 28, 2010 (gmt 0)
I hang out in the bot forum but found this thread after seeing similar kinds of referers in my logs: