Poll: If Google's cache became Opt-In would you?

Yes/No?

[Clark]

This thread [webmasterworld.com] raises questions about the legality of Google's cache feature. I'm wondering how popular the Google cache would be if Google required webmasters to add a meta tag or a comment in robots.txt in order to cache their pages. What I'm really wondering is how popular the cache is with you as a webmaster vs. you as a user. I suspect most people prefer it as users but not as webmasters. Hence this poll.

Note that in this hypothetical example, there would be no penalty for NOT caching (for example now if you turn off the cache, you lose Fresh Tags on your page, which is the only reason I'm not opting out personally...)

Please leave the major discussions to that thread and just answer these 2 questions:

1. If Google were to switch to Opt In (no penalty) would you Opt In?: Yes/No.

2. If there were no penalty for Opting Out right now, Would you Opt out now?
Yes/No.

My answers:

1. No.
2. Yes.

[mayor]

1. No
2. Yes

I used to opt out but I quit opting out for fear of reprisal.

[ciml]

1. Yes (if I could find the time)
2. No

It's not something I'd pay for as I'd rather pay for reliable hosting, but there have been times when I've learned something, formed an opinion about a product or bought something that I might not have if there had been no cache to fall back on.

I would like the datestamp.

So far...

Q1, 15 no, 15 yes.
Q2, 18 no, 12 yes.

[vincevincevince]

1 = yes
2 = no

long live the cache :-)
how else can i track what page date exactly is used in the index? :-D

[ruserious]

1. Yes
2. No

This feature has helped me a lot and I don't want to prevent others from benefitting from it.
I would prefer that Google keeps the system just as it is right now.

[mil2k]

1) Probably yes (Varies from site to site)

2) No.

[coolasafanman]

1. If Google were to switch to Opt In (no penalty) would you Opt In?: Yes/No.

definitely. Similar to one of the above posts, IMO the only people that really use the cache are web designers trying to figure out what version of their page is determining their rankings. I find it very useful.

2. If there were no penalty for Opting Out right now, Would you Opt out now?
Yes/No.

I'd more than likely leave it in.

[Net_Wizard]

1. Yes
2. No

Cache is actually very helpful to my site. One example, I have a dynamic page where at any given time there are 5-6 briefs of the latest articles. With out the cache, users tend to get frustrated when they landed on this page(article have been archived, moved, etc..) but they can check the cache and see what they are looking for.

The other benefit is bandwidth saving. If the user is just looking for information, as far as I'm concern, the user can read the cache. As far as revenue is concern, my product offers are still accessible and if the user would like to explore the site, the navigational menus are likewise accessible.

The smaller benefit, combined with other tools, I can easily find out sites that actually have lifted my articles without permission just for the purpose of ranking. And, sites that supposedly are linking to my site base on the cache but in reality are using the 'bait and switch' tactic. If I see a site using exactly my Title and Description without a cache, most likely a spammer is taking advantage of it.

However, I do understand the concern of those who rely on paid subscription services or work of art.

Cheers

[SEOtop10]

1. Yes. I will even take the trouble if that were necessary.

2. No. I want to be there.

Cache is useful and I can't understand how it violates anyone's copyright as Google does not claim this to be its creation or property.

It directly attributes this to be yours with the site reference. If you have a problem, why put on the Internet?

[Kirby]

1. Yes

2. No

Ditto if needed for WBM. It provides a date stamped neutral third party proof. Ishould probably send WBM a check for saving my a** once already.

[MurphyDog]

No for my political sites, because if I want to take down, edit or change a position I do not want people to go back and give me grief based on Google's cache. It would misrepresent my current position on issues, and therefore be damaging to the purspose of the site.

For my news and retail sites, sure. It is kind of cool to look at old info on the site.

[IITian]

>Ditto if needed for WBM. It provides a date stamped neutral third party proof. Ishould probably send WBM a check for saving my a** once already.

WBM is like the DNA test or fingerprint analysis, helping people like me, who don't have political connections, against lying powerful people and corrupt judges.

Actual example:
I, and a witness, testify that a person whose name was on the employees list, never showed up for work. The ex-boss testified that person worked 12 hours a day. Judge, s expected, ruled in his favor.

I searched the web diligently. Found WBM snapshot taken during the time period in question, of a company about 3000 miles away from my workplace. One of its two principals was the very same person.

[Neo541]

I would certainly like a feature that would allow you to enter your URL for a swift recaching when needed. Even without it:

1. Yes
2. No

[AAnnAArchy]

1. Maybe - I'm lazy, depends on the process
2. No - I like the cache. I search for weird things sometimes and the cached pages are often all I can find.

[Trisha]

1 - yes
2 - no

Like many other people here I sometimes find the cached versions helpful when doing searches and I'd like it to be available for others too.

[Krapulator]

1. Yes
2. No

I control all of the content on my site so no liability issues. I find the cache handy myself so I wouldn't deny my visitors the same.

[GrinninGordon]

1. N/A
2. N/A

If people want to avoid Google or anyone else caching, they should use a nocache command. This goes hand in hand with publishing the information on the Internet in the first place, and protecting anything you consider proprietory. If Google stops caching, there goes their cloaking / other Spamming detection system.

The NY Times should therefore, by their logic, raise the same issue with Microsoft and Apple for having cache memories on PC's also. I say buy another newspaper (if you can call a newspaper that has been proven to print fiction as fact a "news"paper) and move onto another thread ;-)

Ps GoogleGuy - time to bring back the manual penalty system I think (just for the NYT).

[cabbie]

1) yes
2) no

But a big No to the use of my pics in google images

[ctrucks1]

1. Yes
2. No

[rtiainen]

>1. If Google were to switch to Opt In (no penalty) would you Opt In?
>2. If there were no penalty for Opting Out right now, Would you Opt out now?

1. Most likely
2. No

I allow Wayback Machine as well. I have no problem with that someone gets the *unmodified* copy of the content from an alternate source.

Regards,
Sami