Disaster Google will no longer back up the Internet: Cached webpages are dead - Google Search will no longer make site backups while crawling the web.


Google will no longer be keeping a backup of the entire Internet. Google Search's "cached" links have long been an alternative way to load a website that was down or had changed, but now the company is killing them off. Google "Search Liaison" Danny Sullivan confirmed the feature removal in an X post, saying the feature "was meant for helping people access pages when way back, you often couldn't depend on a page loading. These days, things have greatly improved. So, it was decided to retire it."

The feature has been appearing and disappearing for some people since December, and currently, we don't see any cache links in Google Search. For now, you can still build your own cache links even without the button, just by going to "https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:" plus a website URL, or by typing "cache:" plus a URL into Google Search. For now, the cached version of Ars Technica seems to still work. All of Google's support pages about cached sites have been taken down.

Cached links used to live under the drop-down menu next to every search result on Google's page. As the Google web crawler scoured the Internet for new and updated webpages, it would also save a copy of whatever it was seeing. That quickly led to Google having a backup of basically the entire Internet, using what was probably an uncountable number of petabytes of data. Google is in the era of cost savings now, so assuming Google can just start deleting cache data, it can probably free up a lot of resources.

Cached links were great if the website was down or quickly changed, but they also gave some insight over the years about how the "Google Bot" web crawler views the web. The pages aren't necessarily rendered like how you would expect. In the past, pages were text-only, but slowly the Google Bot learned about media and other rich data like javascript (there are a ton of specialized Google Bots now). A lot of Google Bot details are shrouded in secrecy to hide from SEO spammers, but you could learn a lot by investigating what cached pages look like. In 2020, Google switched to mobile-by-default, so for instance, if you visit that cached Ars link from earlier, you get the mobile site. If you run a website and want to learn more about what a site looks like to a Google Bot, you can still do that, though only for your own site, from the Search Console.

The death of cached sites will mean the Internet Archive has a larger burden of archiving and tracking changes on the world's webpages.



liaison.png

URLs in this format still work... for now:
 
Alphabet/Google seem to be facing financial troubles. Not only are they scrapping all old Youtube videos, deleting old documents and photos in Google Cloud/Drive, they're no longer caching websites.

I wonder how much damage has been dealt to them with all the kids using phones to play tiktok instead of browse the web?

It would be fun to see how much the ad revenue has dropped over the years.
 
Alphabet/Google seem to be facing financial troubles. Not only are they scrapping all old Youtube videos, deleting old documents and photos in Google Cloud/Drive, they're no longer caching websites.

I wonder how much damage has been dealt to them with all the kids using phones to play tiktok instead of browse the web?

It would be fun to see how much the ad revenue has dropped over the years.
I'm more inclined to believe the reason is financial. Archiving the entire internet does take up a lot of hard drive space, and all google is really interested in is the meta-data so they can rank pages.
 
I mean to be fair that shit must have gotten expensive over the years.
Maybe, but it looked like they only kept one recent copy per page, unlike Internet Archive which can end up with hundreds or thousands of snapshots for popular pages. These would also get deleted eventually if the page was deleted. This crawling and caching could be intertwined with how PageRank works.
 
This is exactly why archiving and backing stuff up is necessary. Our elites have deemed fit that we live in 1984. Unfortunately for them, everyone has played 2077 and is preparing accordingly.

Big Tech will lose its influence the more retarded it gets. And there's plenty of tech startups in different parts of the globe.
 
i doubt this is the real reason. as KF has shown, the biggest problem with caching is that it makes it harder to hide things when news spreads like wildfire on social media. and google is currently on the side of the people that want to hide an awful lot of things
Yep. Scammers are going to have a field day now. They already do in Europe.
 
Alphabet/Google seem to be facing financial troubles. Not only are they scrapping all old Youtube videos, deleting old documents and photos in Google Cloud/Drive, they're no longer caching websites.

I wonder how much damage has been dealt to them with all the kids using phones to play tiktok instead of browse the web?

It would be fun to see how much the ad revenue has dropped over the years.

Growth has stagnated but let's not pretend their ad revenue is insignificant. It's still what pays all their bills
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240204_113446_Firefox Focus.jpg
    Screenshot_20240204_113446_Firefox Focus.jpg
    167 KB · Views: 3
I have mastered the art of talking a car out of suicide. There's a quest in the game that ends with convincing a talking Tesla that life is worth living.
And that questline has an ending if you have high enough tech skills, you'd allow that Tesla's dad to ascend. 2077 may not be perfect but it had lots of good ideas.

I unironically believe that Nomads are gonna be the next step of clownworld. We're seeing people get priced out of everything and as such, forced to be homeless. But not all homeless settlements end up as glorified drug shacks. Plenty of homeless nowadays are people who actually did work for the system and got burned by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daily Affirmation
Alphabet/Google seem to be facing financial troubles. Not only are they scrapping all old Youtube videos, deleting old documents and photos in Google Cloud/Drive, they're no longer caching websites.

I wonder how much damage has been dealt to them with all the kids using phones to play tiktok instead of browse the web?

It would be fun to see how much the ad revenue has dropped over the years.
Your right that its a financial concern, but its not because of Tiktok taking away ad traffic, but because of Tiktok making even more ad traffic.

There is only so many people on the planet that advertisers actually want to advertise to. There are only so many advertising slots available to present to these desired audiences, and they only have so much money to actually spend on advertising. Changing any one of these three factors changes the relative value of any given ad impression. If the ad budget goes up, they can bid more for a good impression and so they get more money off it. Increase the number of people identified as desirable to advertise to, such as with a massive data harvesting and user tracking operation to let you tell an otherwise anonymous users income, location and hobbies, and you can charge more for that user compared to blind guesses.

But where Google and the rest of the internet (And meatspace, really) went wrong? Advertising on EVERYTHING. If you want to listen to music - ads. If you want to watch a politicians speech - ads. If you want to drive down the road - ads. If you want to look up any information - ads. If you want to log into your online banking you bet your ass there's a banner ad on the side. If you want to pay for a premium service, the 'pleb premium' tier still has ads. The equation has shifted insanely towards ad capacity. Platforms like Tiktok have accelerated this trend by increasing ad density and encouraging doomscrolling for even more ad capacity. So have 'free' services like Spotify, Youtube (and Shorts), and probably soon enough we'll see advertisements move from free to play mobile games, into free to play console and PC titles.

It was constantly getting worse over the last decade, where we saw adpocalypse after adpocalpyse. While the public discussion was brands flexing power to influence platform rules, the unspoken part was that they had so many options for advertising to so many people that they didn't need any one platform to succeed. And now that we're in a rough economic time, and ad spend is going down for a change, we're still massively saturated with ad capacity, and everyone who's business model relies on them can't afford to just pull back - they can create even more capacity, or die.

Googles big money printer has always been selling ads, but that entire market really does appear to be oversaturated at this point. And the problem is only going to get worse as developed economies sink into a declining population state. The eldery are not good advertising candidates, and they're soon to outnumber the young. Immigrants are a mixed advertising bag, as its difficult to target them culturally or to give a good prediction of their economic status. Even if they make decent money, they may send most of it home and be a terrible ad target as a result.

The people in charge aren't ignorant to this, and this is why more things are pushing harder and harder for subscription models now, but consumers have been trained to ignore ads and expect free shit, and services have grown drunk on the "its free you can't complain" power and are still in the habit of making terrible services and expecting them to just work because they cornered the market. Only to find out, people won't pay to be lied to, or to be advertised to, or to have their stuff taken away when its no longer convenient for the business. There's a big reckoning to be had in these businesses.
 
Back