Google Brings Back Archived Page Links
Google is to make it easier to find copies of pages that are no longer available on websites. The change comes several months after Google removed its own cache of web pages.
Users will instead be able to follow a link to the archived copy at the Internet Archive's "wayback machine."
Before this year, many Google search results included a link to Google's own cached copies of web pages. These were the copies that Google made when scanning a web page for content and links to help decide when and where it should appear in search rankings.
The cached copy available in the search results would usually be the most recent copy Google had of the page while it was still online. That was hugely useful if the web page was no longer available, for example if it was from a website that had closed down or deleted old content. It was also useful if a website was overloaded and the page temporarily inaccessible.
Cache Links 'Unnecessary'
Earlier this year Google ditched the feature, saying it was no longer necessary because website were now more dependable. At the time, Google's Danny Sullivan said he'd like to add links to the Internet Archive in their place, something that's now happening.
The Internet Archive aims to be a historical record of online content including web pages, media files and software. The idea is to be a permanent record for historians and researchers in the same way as some libraries try to keep physical copies of books and printed documents.
Among the Internet Archive's features is the Wayback Machine, which lets users either search for a site or type in a URL. They can then look back through a calendar to get links to archived copies of the web page from different dates over the years.
Bonus Results Feature
Google search results will soon include a link to the relevant Wayback Machine page. It will be accessible in the search results by clicking or tapping on the three vertical dots by the side of the website address and then looking through the "About this result" section for the "More About This Page" option. (Source: searchengineland.com)
Not all pages on the Internet Archive will be accessible this way, though, thanks to Google having a slightly more cautious legal approach. It notes "the link to archived webpages will not be available in instances where the rights holder has opted out of having their site archived or if the webpage violates content policies." (Source: archive.org)
What's Your Opinion?
Did you ever use Google's cached links? Did you know about the Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine? Is this a smart replacement for Google's cached links?
My name is Dennis Faas and I am a senior systems administrator and IT technical analyst specializing in cyber crimes (sextortion / blackmail / tech support scams) with over 30 years experience; I also run this website! If you need technical assistance , I can help. Click here to email me now; optionally, you can review my resume here. You can also read how I can fix your computer over the Internet (also includes user reviews).
We are BBB Accredited
We are BBB accredited (A+ rating), celebrating 21 years of excellence! Click to view our rating on the BBB.
Comments
Wayback Machine
This will stop many people and make them think twice about libelling people and then quickly remove the content when they threaten to sue!
I often used the cached links
I have missed the cached links in search results. But not enough to look for the Internet Archive (which is a term I haven't heard before) or the Wayback Machine (which I have heard of). I expect to use the new feature, and it may be a valuable introduction to the WBM.
Will it really be the old cache
How do we know for certain google won't "sanitize" the link?
With all the talk (and action) regarding "mis-" and "dis-" information, how do we know?
This will be interesting to keep an eye on, comparing our archived snapshots with their "links".
As you may have guessed: I don't trust them one bit (or byte).
Not the old cache
The way I read the article, these are NOT the "old cache" but a different link (and presumably not google's) entirely.
Do you read it differently?
Are they identical?
That's exactly how I read it and that is why I don't trust them.
Internet Archive and Wayback Machine
I have used, and in fact I have a shortcut for that site, both the Archive and the Wayback. The search on both is a text search, that is, input a search request and anything on the site with those wors will be listed. I tcan be frustrating if the item searched for includes a book title such as "Taken" which produces some 100 possibilities. On the other hand, if you are looking for a certain music album, the search is pretty accurate, although the actual "backup" might only be a "sample" rather than the entire album. This is true of books searched there as well. In other words, do not count on either of these "libraries" to be complete even if the item searched for or web-page searched for is listed. The owner of the item/web-page/info still has control over how much is avaiable to the public.