Does a listing w/o the 'cached' link makes you not click on the link?

[irock]

Heh... the subject's a bit long. But that's what I want to know. I just enabled no-cache for some of my pages. I would like to know whether or not a 'cached' link is important to you when it comes to finding the 'exact' result.

Thanks.

[pendanticist]

No.

If I'm all that interested in the cache of any particular site, at any point in time, I'll meander over to the Wayback Machine and dig around.

There is a purpose to my searches and if that site comes up in the results w/o a cached link, I'll at least look the site over. After all, that is why I search.

[dirkz]

As a user, I don't care.

[AthlonInside]

I beg 95% of users doesn't notice such little small things

[irock]

The reason I created this thread is because when I search a particular set of keywords, I pinpoint the EXACT line which contains the searched terms. That's where I start my search.

The excerpt under the URL on Google SERP doesn't really help me.

[anime_otaku]

I doubt users would care but I personally assume those that use no-archive tags to be spam. Most sites I seen use it are spam.

[glengara]

I'm curious enough to look at all non-cached pages I come across ;-)

[dasboot]

Don't over-estimate the sophistication of Internet surfers. Most of them can't even change search engines, because they can't even do a search for a search engine in the crappy one plated up for them by their hijacked browser 'supplied' by their ISP.

[corpuscle]

I tend not to click them if there is no cached version - I'm very suspicious of such sites. I don't want to go to pop-up hell and I dont want to go to a site that has been SEOd.

But then again, the actions of readers of this forum are hardly representative of the Internet public at large :)

[europeforvisitors]

I doubt if most people even notice.

[kevinpate]

I can't recall having thought to myself "no cache link? ok, just skip it and look at the next one" and I rather suspect a large number of folks have never noticed it exists, or doesn't, as the case may be.

[BigDave]

The only time I notice is when I am already suspicious of a site. Or when a site is down and I want to see what I missed.

I would be quite surprised if most surfers even know what cached means, or even realize that it is a link of any sort.

[dwilson]

The only time I notice is when I am already suspicious of a site. Or when a site is down and I want to see what I missed.

Agree completely.

[plumsauce]

the site you are reading now comes up
without a cached version in the serps.

what ho?

++

[dirkz]

I think most of the time I just look at the title, then the excerpt. That's it as a user. I look at cached versions only as SEO.

[Snack]

If the link is not a 'familiar' domain (brand names, previously visited sites, etc.) I usually won't click if it's not cached.

I use cache to immediately find my keywords. I want to be able to tell if the site is relevant or seo'd right away.

But that being said, I have yet to meet a client who understood what the cache was, so it's definitely a minority that use it.

[pageoneresults]

I beg 95% of users doesn't notice such little small things.

I'd say that number was probably around 99%. ;)

It means nothing to the casual surfer. It does mean something to a savvy webmaster or marketeer. There could be any number of reasons why no-cache is utilized on a page/site. It should not effect CTR in any noticeable way.

[dirkz]

> I usually won't click if it's not cached

As a user searching for information?