One of Google Search’s oldest and best-known features, cache links, are being retired. Best known by the “Cached” button, those are a snapshot of a web page the last time Google indexed it. However, according to Google, they’re no longer required.
“It was meant for helping people access pages when way back, you often couldn’t depend on a page loading,” Google’s Danny Sullivan wrote. “These days, things have greatly improved. So, it was decided to retire it.”
They really have just given up on being a good search engine at this point huh?
They are an Ad company, and using cached page doesn’t bring ad money to their clients
Make sense, it seems that they have been having lots of meetings regarding how to maximize its revenue
They’ll reintroduce the feature with their own ads embedded.
They may not have a choice in the matter. AI-generated pages are set to completely destroy the noise to signal ratio on the web.
Google’s business has two aspects, collecting user data and serving ads. If Search stops being relevant people will stop using it, which impacts both aspects negatively.
Well that really sucks because it was often the only way to actually find the content on the page that the Google results “promised”. For numerous reasons - sometimes the content simply changes, gets deleted or is made inaccessible because of geo-fencing or the site is straight up broken and so on.
Yes, there’s archive.org but believe it or not, not everything is there.
Or locked behind 100 pages of unnecessarily paginated content. Seriously, one of the best features that a webpage has over a physical printed page is the ability to search it for what you were looking for… smh:-(.
We must archive all the things
I will archive you!
deleted by creator
I would love to archive the comment on archive.org but it seems like a bit of a spammy way to do that…
That’s bs, it’s one of the best features Google has and they’ve been ruining it. Wayback machine wished it could be that comprehensive.
Wayback is definitely more comprehensive than Google. I’ve only seen three occasions of links Google has saved that Wayback hasn’t.
i fear for the days when some cruel unfeeling interest comes for archive.org too
of course it is. why have anything good on there, no point reminding me of the old days when the internet was actually fucking useful
Since when did you use this feature? Please cite a source
Literally yesterday. What source is sufficient to tell you first hand that I used the feature yesterday?
You want proof that it’s useful. Go look at waybackmachine. Literally millions of users using a cached web page feature.
I also literally used it yesterday, mostly because my work has an insanely over the top site blocking situation, and rather then having to input (and likely get a rejection) to allow the site, cached page usually works good and gets me the info I need.
That is exactly why I use it. I need to access pages for work, our internet security is ridiculously overdone and so many sites don’t load… but the cached versions do. Fml
Photo / visual evidence would be fine, I am not picky. I would just like to be sure you are telling the truth, a lot of fraud on the internet nowadays 😒😒
Doosh bagg
deleted by creator
Please cite a source
I last used the feature to view deleted reddit posts.
Another time I used something similar (the wayback machine) to view long gone websites about a postcard
Like a couple of times a year at least. Faster and easier than going to the way back machine to get a copy
I’ve used it three times today. Site down, geo-blocked, and a forum post with info I needed deleted.
So ignorant, if you’ve had to do any digital research, you know these tools intimately
You are a source. I am a source.
deleted by creator
Without getting into too much detail, a cached site saved my ass in a court case. Fuck you Google.
It sucks because it’s sometimes (but not very often) useful but it’s not like they are under any obligation to support it or are getting any money from doing it.
Isn’t caching how anti-paywall sites like 12ft.io work?
At least some of these tools change their “user agent” to be whatever google’s crawler is.
When you browse in, say, Firefox, one of the headers that firefox sends to the website is “I am using Firefox” which might affect how the website should display to you or let the admin knkw they need firefox compatibility (or be used to fingerprint you…).
You can just lie on that, though. Some privacy tools will change it to Chrome, since that’s the most common.
Or, you say “i am the google web crawler”, which they let past the paywall so it can be added to google.
Or, you say “i am the google web crawler”, which they let past the paywall so it can be added to google.
If I’m not wrong, Google has a set range of IP addresses for their crawlers, so not all sites will let you through just because your UA claims to be Googlebot
I dunno, but I suspect that they aren’t using Google’s cache if that’s the case.
My guess is that the site uses its own scrapper that acts like a search engine and because websites want to be seen to search engines they allow them to see everything. This is just my guess, so it might very well be completely wrong.
Would you be willing to share more? It’s fine if you don’t want to, I wouldn’t either.
No, it was pretty personal, and also a legal matter, so I gotta take the high road.
Respect for your discretion.
Need the tea!!!
Was that not something the Wayback Machine could have solved?
Depends. Not every site, or its pages, will be crawled by the Internet Archive. Many pages are available only because someone has submitted it to be archived. Whereas Google search will typically cache after indexed.
At this rate Search will end up in the Google graveyard
It’ll be nothing but AI spam.
Replaced with just ad results.
Google is the king of giving bullshit reasons to hide their true intent.
My guess is ads don’t work in cached pages.
This is the real reason. Google is an ad company, not a search engine.
Just like that safetynet thing. They will write long pages about it, but won’t admit they want to make custom android roms unusable for the average user.
We that’s some shit. I often use that to get info off of pages that I won’t be clicking on normally.
there are half a dozen still very good reasons to keep this feature and one not to: lost ad revenue
assholes
I can’t imagine there was even that much lost revenue. Cached pages are good for seeing basic content in that page but you can’t click through links or interact with the page in any way. Were so many people using it to avoid ads?
Were so many people using it to avoid ads?
I doubt that as well. There are much better ways to deal with ads. I always only used it when the content on the page didn’t exist anymore or couldn’t be accessed for whatever reason.
But I suspected this was coming, they’ve been hiding this feature deeper and deeper in the last few years.
I honestly thought it was already gone.
but you can’t click through links or interact with the page in any way
Most of the time that’s exactly what I want. I hate hunting through 473 pages of stupid bullshit in some janky forum to try to find the needle in that haystack.
I feel like 99% of its usage was to avoid ads/paywalls/geo/account restrictions on news and social media sites
deleted by creator
You can’t lose what you never had. It’s desired ad revenue they’re after.
These days, things have greatly improved.
Websites will never change their URLs today.
i maintain redirects for old URLs for which the content still exists at another address. i’ve been doing that since i started working on web sites 20-some years ago. not many take the time to do that, but i do. so there’s at least a few web sites out there that if you have a 20 year old bookmark to, chances are it still works.
Sites are actually 83% less likely to go offline these days.
The enshittification will continue until quarterly reports improve.
Just kidding, it will continue regardless.
Hahahaha, GOTTEM!
If anything it will keep accelerating the worse quarterly results are as they try to solve their way out of problems they made while still keeping the problems
By they way, I just found out that they removed the button, but typing
cache:www.example.cominto Google still redirects you to the cached version (if it exists). But who knows for how long. And there’s the question whether they’ll continue to cache new pages.they’ve broken / ignored every modifier besides site: in the last few years, god knows how long that’ll work
Quotes are fucking awful now. You have to change the search terms to verbatim now which takes way fucking longer. Google has enshittified almost everything. I’m just waiting for them to ruin Maps.
Remember when Google Now was intelligently selected data and not an endless scroll of paywalled news articles?
I hope they only kill the announced feature but keep the
cachepart.
Just today I had to use it because some random rss aggregator website had the search result I wanted but redirected me somewhere completely different…My guess is that a cached page is just a byproduct when the page is indexed by the crawler. The need a local copy to parse text, links etc. and see the difference to the previous page.
deleted by creator
Time to donate to the internet archibe.
It was meant for helping people access pages when way back, you often couldn’t depend on a page loading,” Google’s Danny Sullivan wrote. “These days, things have greatly improved. So, it was decided to retire it."
They still go down, Danny. And fairly frequently at that. Y’all are fuckin’ stupid.
I’d say things are much worse than they used to be. Sure, in the past sites would disappear or completely fail more often. But, because most sites were static, those were the only ways they could fail. These days the cache feature is useful for websites that have javascript bugs preventing them from displaying properly, or where the content-management-system still pretends the link works but where it silently just loads different content.
How has no one worked on a new search engine over the last decade or so where Google has been on a clear decline in its flagship product!
I know of the likes of DDG, and Bing has worked hard to catch up, but I’m genuinely surprised that a startup hasn’t risen to find a novel way of attacking reliable web search. Some will say it’s a “solved problem”, but I’d argue that it was, but no longer.
A web search engine that crawls and searches historic versions of a web page could be an incredibly useful resource. If someone can also find a novel way to rank and crawl web applications or to find ways to “open” the closed web, it could pair with web search to be a genuine Google killer.
- Google invents, invests, or previously invested into some ground breaking technology
- They buy out competition and throw tons of effort into making superior product
- Eventually Google becomes defacto standard
- Like a few years pass
- Google hands off project to fresh interns to reduce the crap out of the cloud usage to decrease cost
- Any viable alternatives are immediately bought out by Google
- Anything left over is either struggling FOSS or another crappy corporate attempt (cough cough Microsoft)
- Repeat
My favorite case in point being Google Maps.
There’s a lot of startups trying to make better search engines. Brave for example is one of them. There’s even one Lemmy user, but I forget what the name of theirs is.
But it’s borderline impossible. In the old days, Google used webscrapers and key word search. When people started uploading the whole dictionary in white text on their pages, Google added some antispam and context logic. When that got beat, they handled web credibility by the number of “inlinks” from other websites. Then SEO came out to beat link farmers, and you know the rest from there.
An indexable version of Archive.org is feasible, borderline trivial with ElasticSearch, but the problem is who wants that? Sure you want I may, but no one else cares. Also, let’s say you want to search up something specific - each page could be indexed, with slight differences, thousands of times. Which one will you pick? Maybe you’ll want to set your “search date” to a specific year? Well guess what, Google has that feature as well.
Cached versions can sometimes get around a paywall when a site gives Google access but charges users.
Archive.is them
Brave is not a business that should be supported. Also, I’m pretty sure they just use Bing for a back end.
There are also a few paid search engines that people say are good.
What’s the issues with brave??
They’ve had a history of controversy over their life, ranging from replacing ads with their own affiliate links to bundling an opt-out crypto miner. Every time something like this happened, the CEO went on a marketing campaign across social media, effectively drowning out the controversial story with an influx of new users. The CEO meanwhile has got in trouble for his comments on same-sex marriage and covid-19.
In general, it’s always seemed like it would take a very small sack of money for Brave to sell out its users. Also, their browser is Chromium based, so it’s still contributing to Google’s market dominance and dictatorial position over web technologies.
I recommend Kagi. Bought a family plan and it feels like I’ve gone back to 2016 when the search engines weren’t a dumpster fire.
Second kagi. I’m just on the personal plan, but can confirm it’s fire
The next revolutionary search engine will be an AI that understands you. Like what a librarian is… Not just ads served.
i don’t need a search engine that understand me i need a search engine that finds sites and pages based on a string of text i provide it
we should be calling the future piss the way it’s going down the toilet
Well, at the least, you need something to filter out the shit trying to game seo. To me it seems that AI is the easiest approach.
Bing’s copilot is genuinely pretty good, the AI answer is often pretty accurate and the way it’s able to weave links into its answer is handy. I find it way more useful than Google search these days and I’m pretty much just using it on principle as Google is just pissing me off with killing their services, a few of which I’ve used.
I don’t think Microsoft is some saint but copilot is just a good product.
Yes, that would be a Google killer. If you somehow find the money to provide it for free.
Finding a novel way of searching is one thing. Finding a novel way of financing the whole endeavor (and not going the exact route Google is) is another.
