Comments on: Using Noarchive to Remove Your Cache – What’s the Impact?

By: Dynamo Ash

Dynamo Ash — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 08:16:14 +0000

I have seen many ways and tools to help see a page as search engines would see it. Wouldn’t it be easier to just view the Google catched page: cache:www.msn.com and then click on Text only version. This is my favourite because I can easily see all the text the Google sees including alt text etc. Of course won’t work if cache is disabled but I don’t’ come across many sites that have it disabled.

By: Diogenes Passos

Diogenes Passos — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:34:34 +0000

I’d make some tests and I actually do agree that it won’t affect any rankings.

By: malcolm coles

malcolm coles — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:27:50 +0000

Fascinated by the fact you can override the site's wishes and use the cache command anyway. Sorry for all the links, but I just wrote this about two newspapers pulling stories, probably because of a press complaints commission complaint. However, you can see the two original stories here and here using the cache command - even though the Mail uses noarchive.

By: Adam Sherk

Adam Sherk — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:41:33 +0000

Several of the newspaper and magazine sites that I’ve worked have implemented the noarchive tag on all of their content. To-date I haven’t seen any negative (or positive) effects from its use.

By: Allan Stewart

Allan Stewart — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:19:10 +0000

Malcom

If what you say is correct, then either it takes longer than 7 days (the figure I mentioned) or less likelly, Google has changed the way it deals with the cache: command recently and not applied that change retrospectivelly.

As Richard is running this test we will soon have an answere.

Good. More like this please.

By: malcolm coles

malcolm coles — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:12:30 +0000

On the cache command, here's a page from the Mail that has always had noarchive on it and is a couple of weeks old - you can see it via cache command. On the other hand, there are old pages I can't get to appear via cache. Not sure what that means!

By: Allan Stewart

Allan Stewart — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:13:40 +0000

Good test Richard, and I’m interested to see if Google eventaully drops the cache: access.

If I remember rightly, and I could be wrong as my memory is getting bad the older I get, I seem to recal that the Cached copy of the page will eventually stop showing for the cache: command but that it takes about 7 days longer for this to happen. Watch this space as they say.

Like I say, I “think” thats what happens. I checked something like that a while back (3 years ago) when I was trying to game access into expert exchange answer pages.

By: richardbaxterseo

richardbaxterseo — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:46:29 +0000

Thanks fella! That’s the most interesting bit. Take Malcom’s example from earlier – though you don’t see the cached link in the SERPs, the cache is still accessible:

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:telegraph.co.uk&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_en-GBGB314GB314&strip=1

By: jaamit

jaamit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:37:01 +0000

Nice study Richard. I agree with you and Dave Naylor – don’t really see why I’d want to invite others to see my cached page. Good to know that the cache: command still works just the same – wasn’t sure about that one!

By: malcolm coles

malcolm coles — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:30:59 +0000

Several papers use it with no ill effects. The Mail and Telegraph (news stories but not blogs) both have noarchive on their pages.

This also lets them change stories with no obvious sign they’ve done it (EG think the headline during the Jan Moir affair).