Google and the year 1969

Some of my sites are showing the Google cached date as far back as 1969.

Many others that I checked are showing early 2004.

Is the stress finally getting to google?

Tim


http://www.on-line-insurance-quote.com/

Tim Arnold wrote:

Some of my sites are showing the Google cached date as far back as 1969.

An example is always useful in such cases.

Is the stress finally getting to google?

Doubt it.

--
John -> http://johnbokma.com/ MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
Perl & Google/WWW: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced programmer and SEO available: PR7 http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

"John Bokma" <postmaster (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote

Tim Arnold wrote:

Some of my sites are showing the Google cached date as far back as 1969.

An example is always useful in such cases.

I have it happening to some pages as well
here is an example page
http://www.sim64.co.uk/cross-trainers-directory.html
Look at the Google cache, it says it is from 31 Dec 1969

On 4 Dec 2004 01:21:34 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster (AT) castleamber (DOT) com>
wrote:

Tim Arnold wrote:

Some of my sites are showing the Google cached date as far back as 1969.

An example is always useful in such cases.

Is the stress finally getting to google?

Doubt it.

I totally disregard the web pages from before the First world War
........

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:07:35 -0500, Joel M. Eichen
<joeleichen (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On 4 Dec 2004 01:21:34 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster (AT) castleamber (DOT) com
wrote:

Tim Arnold wrote:

Some of my sites are showing the Google cached date as far back as 1969.

An example is always useful in such cases.

Is the stress finally getting to google?

Doubt it.

I totally disregard the web pages from before the First world War
.......

You owe me a new monitor, Joel.

[Yes, Bill, I forgot once again not to drink coffee while reading
posts on here. One day .... one day ... ]

Carol

Tim Arnold wrote:

Some of my sites are showing the Google cached date as far back as
1969.

Many others that I checked are showing early 2004.

Is the stress finally getting to google?

Now that's blog-worthy... Google-bugs are so rare!

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

I emailed Google about this months ago - no one there cares - period. If it
happens to enough sites that really help them rake in the dough, it will
probably get solved only then. A lot of Web companies based in Califoria
seem to have this attitude that the world owes them something...and their
tech support absolutely sucks. I read or hear about another scam occuring in
California nearly every week, and lately I get my share of idiots from
California calling up from trying to scam me something, now that I am back
in the Google index.


"John Bokma" <postmaster (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote

Tim Arnold wrote:

Some of my sites are showing the Google cached date as far back as 1969.

An example is always useful in such cases.

Is the stress finally getting to google?

Doubt it.

--
John -> http://johnbokma.com/ MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
Perl & Google/WWW: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced programmer and SEO available: PR7 http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Techforce wrote:

I emailed Google about this months ago - no one there cares -
period. If it happens to enough sites that really help them rake in
the dough, it will probably get solved only then. A lot of Web
companies based in Califoria seem to have this attitude that the
world owes them something...and their tech support absolutely sucks.
I read or hear about another scam occuring in California nearly every
week, and lately I get my share of idiots from California calling up
from trying to scam me something, now that I am back in the Google
index.


"John Bokma" <postmaster (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B4C4EEBF4D7castleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
Tim Arnold wrote:

Some of my sites are showing the Google cached date as far back as
1969.

An example is always useful in such cases.

Is the stress finally getting to google?

Doubt it.

--
John -> http://johnbokma.com/ MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
Perl & Google/WWW: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced programmer and SEO available: PR7 http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

This is happening to 301 redirected pages in my sites. For instance, some
of the old doorway pages I used to have are still indexed. Since I removed
those pages but still wanted the traffic they were still generating by being
indexed I put in a 301 redirect to the appropriate page. Google has since
picked up the content on the new page but the cache date always shows
December 31, 1969 but only on pages listed at Google for which I have
redirects in my .htaccess.
--
Brent Atkerson
Anrod Screen Cylinder Co.
www.anrodscreen.com

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:22:47 -0500, "Brent Atkerson"
<brent.atkerson (AT) anrodscreen (DOT) comINVALID> wrote:

Techforce wrote:
I emailed Google about this months ago - no one there cares -
period.

[snip]

"John Bokma" <postmaster (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B4C4EEBF4D7castleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
Tim Arnold wrote:

Some of my sites are showing the Google cached date as far back as
1969.

[nsip]

This is happening to 301 redirected pages in my sites. For instance, some
of the old doorway pages I used to have are still indexed. Since I removed
those pages but still wanted the traffic they were still generating by being
indexed I put in a 301 redirect to the appropriate page. Google has since
picked up the content on the new page but the cache date always shows
December 31, 1969 but only on pages listed at Google for which I have
redirects in my .htaccess.
[snip]

Isn't December 31, 1969 a "symbolic date" in programming? I am
thinking it is something to do with a linux error - things still
render, but the error showing through the date being shared?

Carol

It wouldnt surprise me at all. Most the hacking that goes on to disrupt
efficiency is by jerks with Linux boxes. Then they claim its a superior OS
to Windows, and I guess thats how they figure its superior, because it can
ruin other peoples hard work more readily. Bunch of useless Morons.

Isn't December 31, 1969 a "symbolic date" in programming? I am
thinking it is something to do with a linux error - things still
render, but the error showing through the date being shared?

Carol