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
-
Reason for reducing site authority domain?
Hi;
Technical SEO | | 5mizo
I have a website that had an authoritative domain of 10 but today it has reached 5. I wanted to know what the reason for these changes was.
No backlinks from my site have disappeared and even more, but today my authoritative domain has reached 5 authoritative domain.
Can you guide my servant? My website to troubleshoot : bonianservice.com Thank you very much mxyv_untitled-2.jpg0 -
Google webmaster is not crawling links and site cache still in old date
Hi guys, I have been trying to get my page indexed in Google with new title and descriptions but it is not getting indexed. I have checked in many tools but no useful. Can you please tell me what could be the issue? Even I have set up And Google webmaster is not crawling links I have built so far. Few links are indexed but others do not. Why this is happening. My url is: https://www.paydaysunny.com thanks
Technical SEO | | ksmith880 -
Strange URL's for client's site
We just picked up a new client and I've been doing some digging around on their site. They have quite the wide variety of URL's that make for a rather confusing experience. One of the milder examples is their "About" page. Normally I would expect something along the lines of: www.website.com/about I see: www.website.com/default.asp?Page=About I'm typically a graphic designer and know basically nothing about code, but I just assume this has something funky to do with how their website was constructed. I'm assuming this isn't particularly SEO friendly, but it doesn't seem too bad. Until I got to another section of their site. It's a section that logically should look like: www.website.com/training/public-seminars It's: www.website.com/default.asp?Page=MT&Area=Seminars&Sub=MRM Now that's nonsensical to me! Normally if a client has terrible URL's, I'd say let's do some redirects, but I guess I'm a little intimidated by these. Do the URL's have to be structured like this for some reason? Am I missing some important area of coding here? However, the most bizarre example is a link back to their website from yellowpages.com. Where normally I would expect it to lead to their homepage, I get this bizarre-looking thing: http://website1-px.rtrk.com/?utm_source=ReachLocal&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=AssetManagement&reference_id=15&publisher=yellowpages&placement=ypwebsitemip&action_target=listing_website And as you browse through the site, that strange domain stays. For example the About page is now: http://website1-px.rtrk.com/default.asp?Page=About I would try to google this but I have no idea where to even start! What is going on with these links? Will we be able to fix them to something presentable without breaking their website?
Technical SEO | | everestagency0 -
Odd scenario: subdomain not indexed nor cached, reason?
hi all hopefully somebody can help me with this issue 🙂 6 months ago a number of pages hosted at a domain level have been moved to a subdomain level with 301redirects + some others were created from scratch ( at a subdomain level too). what happens is that not only the new urls at the subdomain level are not indexed nor cached, but the old urls are still indexed in google, although by clicking on them they bring to the new urls via 301 redirect. question is why having a 301 redirects to the new urls, no issues with robot.txt, metarobots etc, the new urls are still de-indexed? i might remind you that a few (100 pages or so) have been created from scratch, but they are also not indexed. the only issue found across the page is the no-cache line of code set as follow: Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0 Pragma: no-cache i am not familiar with cache control lines. Can this be an issue from a correct indexing? thanks in advance Dario
Technical SEO | | Mrlocicero0 -
Are bad links the reason for not ranking?
Hello Moz community. I'm looking here for some input from the experts on what could be wrong with a site I'm working on. The site is in Spanish, but I'm sure you'll get the idea. We want to rank the site first page on Google Mexico (www.google.com.mx) for the keyword "refacciones Audi" and some other brands (refacciones = replacement parts would probably be a good translation, just FYI). Now, our page hasn't been completely optimized, so in my mind it's OK not to be on first page yet. However, our main competitor is ranking first page for all the keywords we want to rank for, but when you check their site, you'll find there is hardly any content, no keywords are being used in their content, all pages have the exact same title and meta description, their catalog is in a completely different domain. In short, no SEO whatsoever. Looking at Moz data, our site has a DA of 26, while our competitor's has a 10. They have no external backlinks at all, while we have a few hundred. This leaves me scratching my head: how can a completely non-optimized site outrank us? I decided to check our backlink profile, and a previous SEO agency seems to have built MANY fake blogs with lots of backlinks with rich anchor text. Quite a big percentage of our backlinks are of this kind, so this is the only thing I can think can be affecting our ranking. Will disavowing be our solution? If you'd like to check, our site is: www.refaccionariaalemana.com.mx Our competitors' is: www.saferefacciones.com ANY help will be extremely appreciated as I feel a bit lost. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | EduardoRuiz1 -
No Google cached snapshot image... 'Text-only version' working.
We are having an issue with Googles cached image snapshops... Here is an example: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IyvADsGi10gJ:shop.deliaonline.com/store/home-and-garden/kitchen/morphy-richards-48781-cooking/ean/5011832030948+&cd=308&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk I wondered if anyone knows or can see the cause of this problem? Thanks
Technical SEO | | pekler1 -
I am wondering if I should use the Meta 'Cache" tag?
I am working on removing unnecessary meta tags that have little impact on SEO and I have read so many mixed reviews about using the Meta 'Cache' tag. I need to informative information on whether or not this tag should be used.
Technical SEO | | ImagetecLP0