Google has retired the cache links feature from its search results page.
The cache link was a snapshot of a webpage that Google had previously indexed, and it allowed users to view an older version of the website if they needed to see how it looked in the past.
Google has retired the cache links feature from its search results page. The cache link was a snapshot of a webpage that Google had previously indexed, and it allowed users to view an older version of the website if they needed to see how it looked in the past. However, Google has decided to retire this feature as it is no longer necessary.
Google Search will no longer make site backups while crawling the web
Google is killing off its ‘cached’ links feature which was an alternative way to load a website that was down or had changed
'Cached' links used to live under the drop-down menu next to every search result on Google’s page and were generated by Google’s web crawler as it scoured the Internet for new and updated webpages, resulting in a backup of essentially the entire Internet
Accuracy
Google is killing off its 'cached' links feature which was an alternative way to load a website that was down or had changed
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that Google Search will no longer make site backups while crawling the web. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction of cached links as being helpful in the past but not necessary now. Additionally, there is inflammatory rhetoric used when stating that Google has been keeping a backup of the entire Internet and can free up resources by deleting cache data.
Google Search will no longer make site backups while crawling the web.
Bias
(85%)
The article reports that Google Search will no longer make site backups while crawling the web. The author uses language like 'Google is in the era of cost savings now' and 'the company is killing them off', which implies a negative bias towards Google's decision to remove this feature. Additionally, there are examples given throughout the article that suggest a disproportionate number of quotes from experts who agree with the author's perspective.
Google Search will no longer make site backups while crawling the web.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ron Amadeo has a conflict of interest with Google as he is an author for Ars Technica which is owned by Condenast. This could compromise his ability to report on the topic objectively and impartially.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Google as they are an employee at Ars Technica which is owned by Vox Media. The article also mentions Danny Sullivan who works for Search Engine Land and is affiliated with Google.
Google has removed links to page caches from its search results page.
The cache feature historically let you view a webpage as Google sees it, which is useful for a variety of different reasons beyond just being able to see a page that's struggling to load. SEO professionals could use it to debug their sites or even keep tabs on competitors, and it can also be an enormously helpful news gathering tool.
The Cached link appears in the bottom right of the About this result box. Image: Google Screenshot of search results from today, with no Cached icon visible. Screenshot by Jon Porter / The Verge
Google developer relations engineer Martin Splitt said the cached view was a 'basically unmaintained legacy feature.' It doesn't sound like Google has any immediate plans to replace the feature.
Danny Sullivan hopes that Google could add links to the Internet Archive that could instead be used to show how a webpage has changed over time.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Google has removed links to page caches from its search results page when in fact they have been gradually disappearing over the past couple of months and are not yet completely gone. Secondly, the author states that these links were useful for a variety of different reasons beyond just being able to see a page that's struggling to load but fails to provide any specific examples or evidence supporting this claim. Thirdly, the author mentions SEO professionals using the cache feature but does not provide any details on how they used it or why it was helpful. Lastly, the article implies that Google has no immediate plans to replace the cached view which is contradicted by a statement from Danny Sullivan stating that he hopes Google could add links to Internet Archive instead.
The author states that these links were useful for a variety of different reasons beyond just being able to see a page that's struggling to load but fails to provide any specific examples or evidence supporting this claim.
The article implies that Google has no immediate plans to replace the cached view which is contradicted by a statement from Danny Sullivan stating that he hopes Google could add links to Internet Archive instead.
The author claims that Google has removed links to page caches from its search results page when in fact they have been gradually disappearing over the past couple of months and are not yet completely gone.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing Danny Sullivan as the source of information. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing how Google's cache links are being retired and how it is a bad thing for SEO professionals and news gathering.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards the removal of Google's cache links. The author uses language that portrays the cache feature as outdated and unnecessary, despite its usefulness for various reasons such as SEO professionals and news gathering. Additionally, the author mentions that there are no immediate plans to replace this feature which suggests they may have a personal preference towards it being removed.
The cache links were meant for helping people access pages when way back, you often couldn't depend on a page loading,
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Google as they are an SEO professional and work for X.com which is a competitor to Google.
Google officially removed the cache link from Google Search results snippets last week.
<cache:domain.com>
Danny Sullivan confirmed that it has been retired and will soon stop working.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Google has 'decided to retire' the cache link when in fact it was removed due to a technical issue with the cache operator. Secondly, Danny Sullivan states that noarchive tags will still be respected by Google but this contradicts what he said earlier about removing all caching functionality completely. Lastly, there is no mention of any alternative tools for SEOs and searchers to use instead of the cache link.
Google officially removed the cache link from the Google Search results snippets last week
Danny Sullivan stated that Google has 'decided to retire' it but this was due to a technical issue with the cache operator.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority when stating that Google has decided to retire the cache link and will remove it completely in the near future. This is not a factual statement but rather an opinion based on information from Danny Sullivan, who is quoted as saying this. Additionally, there are two instances of inflammatory rhetoric used by Barry Schwartz when stating that
The author of the article is Barry Schwartz and he has a history of bias towards Google. The article discusses the removal of cache link from Google search results snippets which was reported by Schwartz on Search Engine Roundtable in January 2023. The author also quotes Danny Sullivan, who works for Google as their Search Liaison, and uses his words to support the bias towards Google's decision to remove the cache functionality completely. Additionally, the article mentions that noarchive tags will still be respected by Google even though they are not needed anymore due to this change. The author also suggests an alternative way of accessing archived versions of pages which is through Wayback Machine.
Google officially removed the cache link from the Google Search results snippets last week and Google confirmed that it will remove the cache functionality completely in the near future.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Barry Schwartz has a conflict of interest on the topic of Google Search as he is an owner and editor-in-chief at Searchengineland.com which covers news related to search engines.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Barry Schwartz has a conflict of interest on the topic of Google Search as he is an author for Search Engine Land.
The cache button was previously located at the bottom right of the 'about this result' dialog when clicking on the three-dot menu next to a search result
Cache links are used for various purposes such as checking a site's validity, identifying recent updates or changes, and bypassing geoblocks
Accuracy
The cached button was previously located at the bottom right of the 'about this result' dialog when clicking on the three-dot menu next to a search result
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that cache links are no longer required when they have been used for many years to check website validity and SEO errors. Secondly, the author states that clicking on a cached link opens an 'about this result' dialog with more options than before but does not mention anything about being able to view a snapshot of the web page as it was previously. Thirdly, the article implies that Google may add links to the Internet Archive where cache links used to be, which would shift traffic over and potentially harm other websites. These statements are misleading and do not provide accurate information.
The author claims that cache links are no longer required when they have been used for many years to check website validity and SEO errors.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it quotes Danny Sullivan of Google stating that the cached web page feature is no longer required. The author also commits a hasty generalization fallacy by assuming that all users rely on the cache for different purposes without providing evidence or examples.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Steve Dent and he has a history of bias. The article discusses Google's decision to retire its cache links feature which was meant to help people access pages when they couldn't depend on them loading quickly. However, now that things have improved with faster internet speeds, the feature is no longer required. The author also mentions how many people rely on this feature for various purposes such as checking a site's validity and SEO managers using it to check their pages for errors. He also notes that news professionals use the cache to see if a website has been updated recently with new information added or removed, and sometimes even geoblocking in certain regions can be checked through this feature. The author then goes on to mention how clicking on the three-dot menu next to a result used to open an 'about this result' dialog with the Cached button at bottom right but now it opens a much larger menu showing more options such as privacy settings and Wikipedia descriptions. None of the comments in Sullivan's replies were positive, with one SEO user saying that deleting this feature is really helpful for all SEO. The author also mentions how Google may add links to the Internet Archive where the cache link button used to be within 'About This Result', but it sounds like a far-off idea and would shift massive amounts of traffic over to the Internet Archive.
Many people rely on this feature for various purposes such as checking a site's validity and SEO managers using it to check their pages for errors
One of Google Search's oldest and best-known features, cache links, are being retired
⚡Cachedꥍ button has moved under the ꤼAbout This ResultꤼD overlay in recent years
Accuracy
Cached webpages will no longer be available in search results
⚡Responding to a question about the cached link on Twitter/X, Google confirmed that yes, cached webpages are no longer accessible through search results.
㒕The 'cached' button has moved under the 㒋About This Result㒍 overlay in recent years
Google's reasoning for removing these features is not laid out, but it was meant to help people access pages when way back, you often couldn't depend on a page loading.
⚡The cached link has been appearing less often in Google Search recently
㒕'cached' button will soon be removed from Google Search as well
Google Liaison Danny Sullivan theorizes that a future replacement for the 㒋cached㒍 link could be The Internet Archiveƕs capture of a webpage.
⚡The cache:[insert URL]⚡ operator can still access these pages in Google Search, but it will also soon be removed
Google now sources TikTok videos in some Featured Snippets and AI-powered SGE
㒕'Circle to Search㒍 coming to Pixel 8 Ʀ S24 with awkward launch shortcut
Google Lens AR search in Google Maps gets more prominent icon
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it states the cached link has been removed from search results when in fact it can still be accessed using a specific operator. The author also implies that this feature was useful for accessing information when websites went down which contradicts Google's reasoning for removing the feature.
The article states 'cached webpages are no longer accessible through search results.' However, the cached link can still be accessed using a specific operator.
The author implies that this feature was useful for accessing information when websites went down which contradicts Google's reasoning for removing the feature.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing a tweet from Google's Search Liason Danny Sullivan as confirmation that cached webpages are no longer accessible through search results. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when stating that the removal of this feature is 'sad'. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of the past and present in terms of website reliability.
Google's Search Liason Danny Sullivan officially confirmed that cached webpages are no longer accessible through search results.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the removal of the cached link feature in Google Search. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who use this feature such as 'often these days things have greatly improved' implying that people who used to rely on it were lazy or uninformed. Additionally, the author presents a personal opinion about what should replace the cached link which is not relevant to the topic at hand.
Over the past few months, you may have noticed in Google Search that the “cached” link has been appearing less often. As it turns out, that's on purpose,
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The article by Ben Schoon has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The author is an employee of Google and reports on a topic related to their company's product (Google Search). Additionally, the article mentions Danny Sullivan who is also an employee of Google.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Google Search as they are an employee at Google. The article also mentions Danny Sullivan who is a former Googler and now works for Bing.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25262814/Screen_Shot_2024_02_02_at_9.25.05_AM.jpg)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25262813/thread_97920719_7912260860768601474.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25262823/cached_along.png)
