Strange cache - what could be the reason
-
The cache of one of our site is being displayed in a strange way in Google. The site in question is - http://www.ugwebmart.com/en/ The cache is shown like this -
Title is shown first
description
Followed by URL
What could be the reason for this.
Normally, cache is shown in a box like this ..... in a rectangular box
This is Google's cache of .... . It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on...
-
Thanks. Understood.
-
I was thinking that Google first caches a site, and then includes the site in it's index.
The mechanics of how Google actually works is not public information. We have to make decisions based upon the glimpses of information that is shared along with our experiences and testing results.
With the above understood, Google defines the noarchive tag as "noarchive: prevents Google from showing the Cached link for a page". So technically they could still make the cached page available by other means but not offer the link.
My experience is Google clearly has all the data from your site. If they crawl your site and index it, they capture all the information. They are choosing to not make any cached copies of the site available due to the noarchive tag. Your experience in this instance clearly indicates Google not only does not present the "cached" link in SERPs but blocks users from seeing the cache through other means as well.
In short, I agree with you. I believe your page is cached but Google is preventing the cache from being viewed.
-
Thanks Ryan for your time and patience.
Don't you think the issue here is that the page is indeed cached, but NOT showing the cached link due to the tag mentioned by me. How can a page be in Google's index, but not cached.
I was thinking that Google first caches a site, and then includes the site in it's index.
-
Yes to both questions.
I mean the page is in Google's index and not cached.
The noarchive meta tag is designed specifically to prevent search engines from caching a web page.
-
You mean that page is in Google's index, but NOT cached.
I just came across this tag
is the issue has something to do with this tag ?
I replied late because i am in a different time zone.
-
When I enter the search query you offered, cache:http://www.ugwebmart.com/en/, I see a single normal search result. There is nothing wrong with the result except you are wanting to see the cached page, not the search result. The issue is, the cached page does not exist. Google SERPs shows no cache. The system cannot provide what it does not possess.
It appears Google is thinking, well we don't have the cache that is being requested, so we'll offer the next best thing, the search result to the live page which the user can click on. It makes perfect sense to me.
You are comparing the result for your page with other pages and asking about the differences. In the example you offered, www.bidvolt.com/drywall-contractors.php is a cached page. It has an SEO issue in that both the www and non-www URLs work.
When I look at the non-www cache it comes up with a standard "your search did not match any documents" message. This url, as entered, lacks any result matches in Google. If you enter the same URL adding in the www subdomain, you will see the cached page.
The result is different because in this example the page is not in Google's index, where your page is in the index. From what I am seeing the results are logical, sensible and normal.
-
So how exactly are you viewing the "cache"?
I am viewing the cache using Google toolbar. Please enter the below line in Google and you will understand what i am trying to say
cache:http://www.ugwebmart.com/en/
and view the result. If it's not cached as you are saying, then why is it being shown like this. If a page is not cached, it does not show like this.
If a page is not cached, it should show like this -
-
Perhaps we can find some common ground upon which to agree.
http://www.ugwebmart.com/en/ is not currently cached in Google. The screenshot I shared shows the page is not cached.
The natural way to view cache is to click the "Cached" link in a search result page. You are not clicking that link. So how exactly are you viewing the "cache"?
I am taking a guess that you are attempting to access the cache directly through another means, and therefore you are not seeing the desired result.
The reply offered earlier where you said "I have added the image of the cache" does not have any image attached. Perhaps if you could share a complete image it would clarify things.
-
If you open the page http://www.ugwebmart.com/en/, and view it's cache, you will understand what i am trying to say. It shows
cache:http://www.ugwebmart.com/en/
Web Development India - UG Webmart6 Jul 2011 – UG Webmart specializes in custom web development, open source solutions and Organic SEO services.
www.ugwebmart.com/en/What i mean by normal cache ( cache which is normally shown ) is what is being shown when you view of http://www.ugwebmart.com/ ( home page )
The difference in the cache of two pages is what i would like to know
If there is no cache, it should have been shown blank
-
You are searching the cache for www.ugwebmart.com/en/. The problem is, there is no cache for the page, which is why your results are appearing that way.
Notice the second result does not have the word "cache" next to it.
-
I have added the image of the cache.
-
Atul, I took a look at the cache for the URL you offered and it appears normal to me. Can you offer a search term or the exact page that is showing the issue? As Steven suggested, a screenshot would be most helpful.
-
Do you have a screen capture of the cache result that you see it as appears as normal for me an its a little difficult to determine what you're describing
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Can I speed up removal of cache for 301'd page on unverified website?
I recently asked another website to remove a page from their website (I have no control over this website) and they have now 301'd this old URL to another - this is just what I wanted. My only aim now is to see the Google cache removed for that page as quickly as possible.
Technical SEO | | Mark_Reynolds
I'm not sure that asking the website to remove the url via WMT is the right way to go and assume I should just be waiting for Google to pick up the 301 and naturally remove the cache. But are there any recommended methods I can use to speed this process up? The old URL was last cached on 3 Oct 2014 so not too long ago. I don't think the URL is linked from any other page on the Internet now, but I guess it would still be in Google's list of URLs to crawl. Should I sit back and wait (who knows how long that would take?) or would adding a link to the old URL from a website I manage speed things up? Or would it help to submit the old URL to Google's Submission tool? URL0 -
Why is Google's cache preview showing different version of webpage (i.e. not displaying content)
My URL is: http://www.fslocal.comRecently, we discovered Google's cached snapshots of our business listings look different from what's displayed to users. The main issue? Our content isn't displayed in cached results (although while the content isn't visible on the front-end of cached pages, the text can be found when you view the page source of that cached result).These listings are structured so everything is coded and contained within 1 page (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/). But even though the URL stays the same, we've created separate "pages" of content (e.g. "About," "Additional Info," "Contact," etc.) for each listing, and only 1 "page" of content will ever be displayed to the user at a time. This is controlled by JavaScript and using display:none in CSS. Why do our cached results look different? Why would our content not show up in Google's cache preview, even though the text can be found in the page source? Does it have to do with the way we're using display:none? Are there negative SEO effects with regards to how we're using it (i.e. we're employing it strictly for aesthetics, but is it possible Google thinks we're trying to hide text)? Google's Technical Guidelines recommends against using "fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash." If we were to separate those business listing "pages" into actual separate URLs (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/contact/ would be the "Contact" page), and employ static HTML code instead of complicated JavaScript, would that solve the problem? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!
Technical SEO | | fslocal0 -
Pages not being cached have a negative effect?
Hi all! I look after a website where it's been discovered a section of the website has the noarchive robots meta tag active on it causing it to not get cached but has been indexed. Out of curiosity has anyone seen any negative effects from Google for having pages that aren't cached? It's not the strongest section on the website so makes it tricky to judge myself but interested if anyone had any thoughts on the matter. Cheers,
Technical SEO | | thisisOllie0 -
Cache pages in search results
My URL is: pure mobile . ca when searching on google for "puremobile note 2 defender" the search results are coming up with the incorrect title pages of my search results - for some reason all the search results are coming up with "unlocked cell phone" at the end of the title. but on the android and on my desktop - they show the correct title of my pages. we used to deal with unlocked cell phone ( over a year ago) - and all meta tags and title tags have been fully updated. how can i let google know to update these results.
Technical SEO | | puremobile0 -
Is Google caching date same as crawling/indexing date?
If a site is cached on say 9 oct 2012 doesn't that also mean that Google crawled it on same date ? And indexed it on same date?
Technical SEO | | Personnel_Concept0 -
Google seems to be penalizing my site for some reason
I recently took control of a website which did have some pretty big SEO problems, duplicate content being one of the main ones!! Looking back at ranking data the website ranked very well for it's main keyword, #5 for Google, Yahoo and Bing. The ranking then dropped in February 2012 for Google to #64 but stayed the same for Yahoo and Bing. I scrapped the dodgy content and completely rewrote it using a Wordpress framework about 6 weeks ago, still targeting the same keywords and 301 redirecting the old pages to the new pages where applicable. My rankings for Yahoo and Bing are still maintaining their page 1 rankings but Google is still ranking the website on page 5/6. My question is. Is the website getting punished for something that was part of the old website? If so how can I find out what it is and fix it? This website ranked on page 1 for Google for most of it's popular keywords but now it doesn't. I appreciate any feedback Many Thanks : )
Technical SEO | | alexhowe0 -
Does anyone know how to automatically record Google Cache dates?
I haven't heard of such a tool but I would have thought it would be pretty useful for measuring changes etc Does anyone know of such a tool?
Technical SEO | | CraigAddyman0 -
Strange duplicate content issue
Hi there, SEOmoz crawler has identified a set of duplicate content that we are struggling to resolve. For example, the crawler picked up that this page www. creative - choices.co.uk/industry-insight/article/Advice-for-a-freelance-career is a duplicate of this page www. creative - choices.co.uk/develop-your-career/article/Advice-for-a-freelance-career. The latter page's content is the original and can be found in the CMS admin area whilst the former page is the duplicate and has no entry in the CMS. So we don't know where to begin if the "duplicate" page doesn't exist in the CMS. The crawler states that this page www. creative-choices.co.uk/industry-insight/inside/creative-writing is the referrer page. Looking at it, only the original page's link is showing on the referrer page, so how did the crawler get to the duplicate page?
Technical SEO | | CreativeChoices0