by Iroquois » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:52 am
What gives? I'm not seeing any cache in google searches.<br><br>Is this the "reason"?:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/ecommerce/0,39020372,2137329,00.htm">news.zdnet.co.uk/internet...329,00.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Google's cache causes copyright concern<br>Stefanie Olsen, CNET News.com<br>CNET News.com<br>July 10, 2003, 08:54 BST<br><br>Online publishers are expressing reservations about Google's caching service, which records snapshots of Web pages<br><br>Like other online publishers, The New York Times charges readers to access articles on its Web site. But why pay when you can use Google instead?<br> <br>Through a caching feature on the popular Google search site, people can sometimes call up snapshots of archived stories at NYTimes.com and other registration-only sites. The practice has proved a boon for readers hoping to track down Web pages that are no longer accessible at the original source, for whatever reason. But the feature has recently been putting Google at odds with some unhappy publishers.<br><br>"We are working with Google to fix that problem -- we're going to close it so when you click on a link it will take you to a registration page," said Christine Mohan, a spokeswoman at New York Times Digital, the publisher of NYTimes.com. "We have established these archived links and want to maintain consistency across all these access points."<br><br>Google offers publishers a simple way to opt out of its temporary archive, and scuffles have yet to erupt into open warfare or lawsuits. Still, Google's cache links illustrate a slippery side of innovation on the Web, where cool new features that seem benign on the surface often carry unintended consequences.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>No more google cache, or a significanlty changed one, could make scrubbing the web a whole lot easier. <p></p><i></i>
