One of Google Search’s oldest and best-known features, cache links, are being retired. Best known by the “Cached” button, those are a snapshot of a web page the last time Google indexed it. However, according to Google, they’re no longer required.

“It was meant for helping people access pages when way back, you often couldn’t depend on a page loading,” Google’s Danny Sullivan wrote. “These days, things have greatly improved. So, it was decided to retire it.”

    • lauha@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      84
      ·
      5 months ago

      They are an Ad company, and using cached page doesn’t bring ad money to their clients

      • kratoz29@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Make sense, it seems that they have been having lots of meetings regarding how to maximize its revenue

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      They may not have a choice in the matter. AI-generated pages are set to completely destroy the noise to signal ratio on the web.

      Google’s business has two aspects, collecting user data and serving ads. If Search stops being relevant people will stop using it, which impacts both aspects negatively.

  • NoRodent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well that really sucks because it was often the only way to actually find the content on the page that the Google results “promised”. For numerous reasons - sometimes the content simply changes, gets deleted or is made inaccessible because of geo-fencing or the site is straight up broken and so on.

    Yes, there’s archive.org but believe it or not, not everything is there.

  • Toes♀@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s bs, it’s one of the best features Google has and they’ve been ruining it. Wayback machine wished it could be that comprehensive.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    5 months ago

    of course it is. why have anything good on there, no point reminding me of the old days when the internet was actually fucking useful

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Literally yesterday. What source is sufficient to tell you first hand that I used the feature yesterday?

        You want proof that it’s useful. Go look at waybackmachine. Literally millions of users using a cached web page feature.

        • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I also literally used it yesterday, mostly because my work has an insanely over the top site blocking situation, and rather then having to input (and likely get a rejection) to allow the site, cached page usually works good and gets me the info I need.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      I can’t imagine there was even that much lost revenue. Cached pages are good for seeing basic content in that page but you can’t click through links or interact with the page in any way. Were so many people using it to avoid ads?

      • NoRodent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Were so many people using it to avoid ads?

        I doubt that as well. There are much better ways to deal with ads. I always only used it when the content on the page didn’t exist anymore or couldn’t be accessed for whatever reason.

        But I suspected this was coming, they’ve been hiding this feature deeper and deeper in the last few years.

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        but you can’t click through links or interact with the page in any way

        Most of the time that’s exactly what I want. I hate hunting through 473 pages of stupid bullshit in some janky forum to try to find the needle in that haystack.

      • bjorney@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I feel like 99% of its usage was to avoid ads/paywalls/geo/account restrictions on news and social media sites

  • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The enshittification will continue until quarterly reports improve.

    Just kidding, it will continue regardless.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      If anything it will keep accelerating the worse quarterly results are as they try to solve their way out of problems they made while still keeping the problems

  • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ironically just yesterday I needed Google Cache because a page I needed to read was down and I couldn’t find the option anymore.

    Are we going to need to go back to personal web crawlers to back-up information we need? I hate today’s internet.

  • NoRodent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    By they way, I just found out that they removed the button, but typing cache:www.example.com into Google still redirects you to the cached version (if it exists). But who knows for how long. And there’s the question whether they’ll continue to cache new pages.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 months ago

      they’ve broken / ignored every modifier besides site: in the last few years, god knows how long that’ll work

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      I hope they only kill the announced feature but keep the cache part.
      Just today I had to use it because some random rss aggregator website had the search result I wanted but redirected me somewhere completely different…

    • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      My guess is that a cached page is just a byproduct when the page is indexed by the crawler. The need a local copy to parse text, links etc. and see the difference to the previous page.

  • pastaPersona@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    5 months ago

    In a shocking turn of events, google decided once again to make their namesake service worse for everyone.

    Legitimately baffling, keeping this feature doesn’t really seem like it would impact anyone except those that use it, while removing it not only impacts those people that already use it, but those who would potentially have reason to in the future.

    Cannot think of a single benefit to removing a feature like this.

    • OpenStars@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      It is only baffling if you still think that Google’s aim is to help people. At one point they were trying to gain market share and so that was true. It is not anymore.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      ostensibly it takes a lot of space to cache that much data, but seeing as they own youtube this should be nothing in comparison

  • Chris@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    5 months ago

    I find this very useful to read paywalled articles that Google has managed to index!

    OK, I see why they might want to get rid of it.

  • rhabarba@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    5 months ago

    These days, things have greatly improved.

    Websites will never change their URLs today.

    • ares35@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      i maintain redirects for old URLs for which the content still exists at another address. i’ve been doing that since i started working on web sites 20-some years ago. not many take the time to do that, but i do. so there’s at least a few web sites out there that if you have a 20 year old bookmark to, chances are it still works.

  • zcd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 months ago

    Google well on their way on their uber-dick speedrun

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is the search engine equivalent of aiming a carbine at your feet and shooting yourself with a .50 cal round.

    Cached pages were something I found myself using quite a bit and them going may be the push needed for me to use an alternative search engine.