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.

[Brett_Tabke]

1) absolutly not.
The cached liability is too great.

2) Of course.
We do on almost every page.

[Tor]

Simple answers: :)

1. No
2. Yes

[makemetop]

Ditto to the above!

[Chris_R]

1. Probably Not - it depended on the site.
2. No

#One would be yes - if without the cache - we were preventing snippets as well. I am assuming that ALL you mean is the cache tag.

[vitaplease]

Leaving legal/ethical opinions to the other thread:

1. yes
2. no

- I have nothing to hide, nor to be ashamed of as far as I can see.
- I have many visitors to my website using the feature - amongst others when the server accidentally is down.
- I like the idea copyright wise - showing copycats I was earlier with my content for example (even more so with the way-back-machine).
- I would pay to have Google keep a datestamped version of specific pages.
- I use it a lot as a searcher.

[satanclaus]

1. no
2. yes

[roneill]

Yes
No

[rfgdxm1]

1. yes
2. no

[worker]

yes
no

[angiolo]

no

yes

[MrSpeed]

My answers:
1. No.

I don't care if google caches my pages but I would not take any time/effort to modify my pages to Opt In if google removed the cache.

2. Yes.

[Sinner_G]

No
No

Just because I don't really care. So I won't make any effort.

[bateman_ap]

1. No
2. Yes

[kevinpate]

yes
no
I just don't have any problem with the way google does the cache and it's more helpful than not in my view.

[too much information]

1. Yes, if the cache could be refreshed on request. No otherwise.
2. Yes

[Tropical Island]

1. - yes

2. - no

I just don't see the problem.

[Dayo_UK]

Yes
No

Ditto to Tropical_Island - I dont see the problem either :)

[twilight47]

1. Probably
2. Probably Not.

I guess I don't fully understand the question.
Can't you opt out right now using Meta Tags? I wasn't aware of any penalty for doing so.

[dragonlady7]

>1. If Google were to switch to Opt In (no penalty) would you Opt In?

Yes, I would.

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

No, I would not.

My reasons are as follows:
The content I provide does not earn me money in and of itself. The more people that can see my content, the better off I am. My networking guy is incompetent and occasionally the server is down because he was picking his nose and jarred the power cord loose or something (I'm serious. That happens here). If right at that second, someone comes to look at my site and can't, they won't see anything. If they can see a cache, I still look like a twit but at least they'll see my information and realize how great my stuff is. They're much more likely to forgive a little server outage if they can see my stuff; if they can't, they're much more likely to simply forget about me.

I can see how people whose content IS their entire business would not want free caches available everywhere. Especially for people who are very interested in tracking traffic through their site. For them, it is indeed a concern.
In general, I think an opt-out system is unethical and misleading for most circumstances. HOWEVER. That presupposes that those who would opt-in would be the more knowledgeable, and most people would opt-out.
In the case of Google's cache, the people who know nothing about the issue are far more likely to be the ones who would opt-in if they understood what was going on. That is not the case for spam, nor is it the case for telemarketing (the most obvious examples I can think of of opt-in systems that have been defeated or should be). But it is the case for Google's cache, which most people, if it's explained to them, find to be benign and even beneficial. I truly believe that the cache's intent is as a convenience feature, as most users find it to be.
Sorry, perhaps much of that belonged in the other thread, but I wanted to explain my choices and lack the focus necessary to determine where to split that into the other thread.

[Clark]

I guess I don't fully understand the question.
Can't you opt out right now using Meta Tags? I wasn't aware of any penalty for doing so.

I think the opt out is Meta tags, yes. It's not a major penalty, just fresh tags don't show. Which may mean that Freshbot won't crawl you as often (not sure about that though)

[rcjordan]

>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.

1. No, opt-in implies I have to do something.

2. No, opt-out implies I have to do something.

[lasko]

1) - YES

2) - NO

[peewhy]

1) - YES

2) - NO

If we carry on like this we'll get shot for 'me too' posting:)

[europeforvisitors]

1. Yes, I would opt in.
2. No, I wouldn't opt out.

Why? Because affiliate and AdSense links work just fine on Google's cached versions of my pages, and those links are what generate my site's revenue.

[dcheney]

1. Yes
2. No

I find that the cache feature is enourmously useful in my own research - especially on larger pages - because it highlights the words/names I'm seeking. (Saves me having to do a find within the page.)

[werty]

1)No
2)Yes

I could finally get my (real)name of the internet, while still getting indexed.

[IITian]

1. Yes
2. No

This feature has helped me a lot and I don't want to prevent others from benefitting from it.

[crosenblum]

No,
No.

I think caching is a great feature, and which we as webmasters have 100% control.

But that's not what this is about.

This is about lawyers and competing companies on the web/internet trying to take down another successful company, Google.

They are so jealous, that they'll do anything, say anything to cause problems. Even if they factually don't exist.

Google is not out to steal anyone's copyrights, they provide a service.

All you have to do is use your bleeping brain, and just mark your pages as noarchive. It's not that bleeping hard.

If you want your pages really to be protected, don't even serve them on the internet, just print out, and hand to people you trust.

But that's not what the internet is about.

Internet - A Free exchange of ideas and information.

Sure there are people trying to sell products or services.

What does google offer as a service/product?

Easy tools to help people find what they are looking for, and great ways for companies to have ads that are focused on their specific demographic..

Google is a great company, not because of any game playing, because they used their brains, and have lots of common sense.

Any company could beat them just by using those two things.

Get a life, and stop wasting our time and energy on weak whining about problems that are your responsibility to take care, not googles.

[Jakpot]

1. No.
2. Yes.