Repost, New Question: Washingtonpost.com and Google

My question before was when you do site:washingtonpost.com, none of the
pages are cached. My original finding is the tags below:
<META CONTENT="NO-CACHE" HTTP-EQUIV="CACHE-CONTROL">
<META CONTENT="NO-CACHE" HTTP-EQUIV="PRAGMA">

But then I see a lot of pages in that domain without those metatags and
they're not cached either. It's not the "log in" protection, because
that's done in a JavaScript redirect to the login page depending on
cookie, and I know search engines don't read JavaScript. It's not good
practice, but it definately wouldn't cause the whole site not to be
cached. It might be some "no cache request" but I just don't know
where it's doing it.

The pages in washingtonpost.com are getting some rankings (example: for
keyword "Midtown Bethesda North"). Even though Google isn't caching
those pages, does that mean Google doesn't know anything about what's
on those pages except for the Title and Meta tags? Or does it mean
Google knows what's on those pages (such as keyword focused content,
keywords in h1 tags, etc), but is just hiding the cached version from
users because of some kind of "no cache request" from
washingtonpost.com's programming?

Thanks,
Paul.

"Paul Zhao" <ppzhao (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

My question before was when you do site:washingtonpost.com,
none of the pages are cached. My original finding is the tags
below:

<META CONTENT="NO-CACHE" HTTP-EQUIV="CACHE-CONTROL">
<META CONTENT="NO-CACHE" HTTP-EQUIV="PRAGMA">

The purpose of those tags applies to the web-browser on the client
side and to proxy servers which might cache content providing access
to a network of systems. If the browser or the proxy does not cache
the page, it always reloads the page from the source, meaning the
client browser asks to reload, it doesn't reload the page from its own
cache, it sends a request out, and if there happens to be a proxy
server in between the client computer and the source website, the
proxy then looks at those tags and if it needs to reload it sends the
request for the page to the original source. It has nothing to do with
Google caching the content of the page.

The actual caching of the content is controlled by a robots.txt
or by a:

<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />

Google provides a meta tag as well:

<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex" />
See: http://www.google.com/webmasters/bot.html

Hope this helps.

--
Jim Carlock
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/
Post replies to the group.

I understand that, but washingtonpost.com isn't using robots meta tags
on any pages, or blocking anything (other than Alexa's bot) in
robot.txt.

"Paul Zhao" <ppzhao (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

I understand that, but washingtonpost.com isn't using robots
meta tags on any pages, or blocking anything (other than Alexa's
bot) in robot.txt.

Google appearantly offers a way to uncache a website. There's
a link on the following page (which doesn't seem to work) to
automatically remove the cached content of a website. I read
somewhere (a few days ago) that when a link gets removed,
a website gets removed (at the website owners request), it
remains removed for a period of 180 days. Perhaps Google
provides such a mechanism for uncaching as well.

http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html#uncache

The link that I have problems with:

http://services.google.com/urlconsole/controller

Someone else perhaps might contribute some other information.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.
--
Swimming Pools, Spas and Water Features
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/