News Google is axing cached webpages from search results, tells everyone to use Internet Archive instead

[Admin]

An official statement from Google Search Liaison Danny Sullivan laments the change, but directly shouts out Internet Archive as an alternative.

Google is axing cached webpages from search results, tells everyone to use Internet Archive instead : Read more

 

[ThomasKinsley]

Once a mainstay of Internet archiving, Google Cache fell out of favor 6-8 years ago. I noticed this when trying to access cached pages and it almost never worked.

 

[bit_user]

I hope more members of the public step up and support archive.org. As is, it seems like they're operating on a shoestring budget. I always make sure to include them in my year-end donations.

https://archive.org/donate
​

I really hope Google will also support them, but I'm sure any support they provide will be far less than they internally spent on their page caching.

 

[emike09]

I noticed cached pages disappearing from search results starting a couple of years ago. I used these frequently, usually when a website was down or having issues, or to view a version of a page that had redacted information. Archive.org is still awesome, just a bit slower and less convenient.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Your browser may not be compatible with all the features on this site. Consider upgrading to a modern browser for an improved experience.

The Internet Archive doesn't like Edge...

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

I hope more members of the public step up and support archive.org. As is, it seems like they're operating on a shoestring budget. I always make sure to include them in my year-end donations.

​

https://archive.org/donate​

​

I really hope Google will also support them, but I'm sure any support they provide will be far less than they internally spent on their page caching.

Archive.org and Wikipedia are two places I never feel bad for donating to.

 

[ezst036]

Google is going to requisition resources to spy on us more. Saving caches doesn't make them any money.

Stealing your data does.

 

[cam menter]

As the outliers of the golden age of media/data fall, soon there will be but a single central source for these remnants of history, and the archive is already at risk of being dismantled by greedy publishers and other well financed sources bent on the destruction of data that doesn't suite their taste or make them richer.

 

[yeyibi]

The cache was frequently the only way to access a webpage, and frequently the fastest way.

 

[cyrusfox]

archive.ph is my go to, archive.org (waybackmachine), is too slow, but it is my last ditch hope when all others fail.

 

[salgado18]

I hope more members of the public step up and support archive.org. As is, it seems like they're operating on a shoestring budget. I always make sure to include them in my year-end donations.

​

https://archive.org/donate​

​

I really hope Google will also support them, but I'm sure any support they provide will be far less than they internally spent on their page caching.

If Google redirects to archive.org, they should pay for the massive traffic that will come. Maybe it will be enough for them to stay afloat without donations, but what would Google demand in return?

 

[Geofff]

An official statement from Google Search Liaison Danny Sullivan laments the change, but directly shouts out Internet Archive as an alternative.

Google is axing cached webpages from search results, tells everyone to use Internet Archive instead : Read more

Shame. I've noticed more websites parasite off Google search results by amending the webpage after it's been scanned.

Ancestry. com, for instance, continually add searchable names with dates & places to their pages & then remove them. You click the Google link & allow ancestry to profitably flood your PC with cookies, but the name in Google search is not on the page displayed. Only paying Ancestry will give you access to the details on Google's search.

The cache at least kept such rogues a bit more honest & each paracite profits by damaging Google's reputation

Some sites get you register all your details before showing a page without the Google return on it.

 

[Geofff]

Shame. I've noticed more websites parasite off Google search results by amending the webpage after it's been scanned.

Ancestry. com, for instance, continually add searchable names with dates & places to their pages & then remove them. You click the Google link & allow ancestry to profitably flood your PC with cookies, but the name in Google search is not on the page displayed. Only paying Ancestry will give you access to the details on Google's search.

The cache at least kept such rogues a bit more honest & each paracite profits by damaging Google's reputation

Some sites get you register all your details before showing a page without the Google return on it.

Using the archive site doesn't help, as these paracite webpages continually change the bottom of thier pages. Only Google's cache will show you the page with the displayed search details from Google's cached.

 

[TV4Fun]

In other news, there's been a massive online debate over what color a dress is.