Grateful to some factual (not guesswork which I, as a SEO layman, always make) advices.

I guess a web page being "cached" is the number one criterion for a link from that page being counted by Google.
Then it is therefore most important to get cached. I found that a new page may be cached by Google in a matter of days, but also some pages were never cached, even it is full of unique contents. Why?

Secondly, I found some cached pages have disappeared from the search (cache:http://...) even though the unique contents remain unchanged. Why?

Then how could a page get cached and remained cached?

Thank you in advance.

reladv wrote:

Grateful to some factual (not guesswork which I, as a SEO layman, always make) advices.

I guess a web page being "cached" is the number one criterion for a link from that page being counted by Google.
Then it is therefore most important to get cached. I found that a new page may be cached by Google in a matter of days, but also some pages were never cached, even it is full of unique contents. Why?

Ok, just because a page isn't cached doesn't mean it hasn't been crawled. Generally it does, but often crawlers will visit but a new cache not created...

Second, just because Google knows about a link, doesn't mean it is 'counted' nor do we know the actual 'value' of links that are ingested by Google. Generally speaking, crawl/indexation rates are based on backlinks, existing authority of site (global value) as far as PR being passed to internal pages.

reladv wrote:

Secondly, I found some cached pages have disappeared from the search (cache:http://...) even though the unique contents remain unchanged. Why?

Once again, if there is a lack of internal PR being passed or external backlinks being pointed to the page, it may find its way out of the main index over time.

reladv wrote:

Then how could a page get cached and remained cached?

Simple, put more links to it internally than other pages (giving it prominence) and/or build some backlinks to the page.


Now, I can't guarantee this will work as each case is truly specific, I haven't seen the page in question. For all we know there is some form of filter/penalty being applied... the above advice is merely a generalization of how things work.

Hi, TheGypsy,

What I have experienced in some link exchanges that the prerequisite for a proposed exchange is that the link must be from a page which is cached. A small script is there to double-check the proposed linking page having cached before directing to the submission page.

I wonder this must be crucial in at least "qualifying" for the link count by Google, otherwise these people would not take the trouble to do all these...

Thanks for your input.

Many people include "cache" dates, etc. as proof that the page a link is added to is in Google's search results.

The cache status certainly doesn't indicate that a site is in good standing w/ Google (IMHO), but it does give you some assurance that your links haven't been added to a brand new page or site (vs. an established one).

I have yet to see the script you're talking about, but it's not terribly surprising.  Next thing you know, they'll want a cheek swap for DNA testing

morepro_cory wrote:

Many people include "cache" dates, etc. as proof that the page a link is added to is in Google's search results.

The cache status certainly doesn't indicate that a site is in good standing w/ Google (IMHO), but it does give you some assurance that your links haven't been added to a brand new page or site (vs. an established one).

I have yet to see the script you're talking about, but it's not terribly surprising.  Next thing you know, they'll want a cheek swap for DNA testing

lol.... careful what U ask for... Google has invested in 2 DNA processing companies...they really do want to index the world's info.... including your DNA...;0)

morepro_cory wrote:

Many people include "cache" dates, etc. as proof that the page a link is added to is in Google's search results.

The cache status certainly doesn't indicate that a site is in good standing w/ Google (IMHO), but it does give you some assurance that your links haven't been added to a brand new page or site (vs. an established one).

I have yet to see the script you're talking about, but it's not terribly surprising.  Next thing you know, they'll want a cheek swap for DNA testing

Can you explain a bit more about "cheek swap for DNA testing"?

And why TheGypsy was so sensitive and responsive about this issue?

They're just having a joke, Mate.

It's a cheek swab, not swap.

It's when they stick a bit of wood with cotton wool in your mouth and look at the gunk under a microscope to see who your father was.

Ah, you Canadians!

Regards,
Laurie.

...and it is true... they have invested in 2 companies that do DNA sequence processing... Google wants yer DNA

laurie_m wrote:

They're just having a joke, Mate.

It's a cheek swab, not swap.

It's when they stick a bit of wood with cotton wool in your mouth and look at the gunk under a microscope to see who your father was.

Ah, you Canadians!

Regards,
Laurie.

Hi, Laurie,

I am sorry for not getting the joke, as I know what cheek swab is.  I had conducted this for my father in order to identify the bones suspected to belong to my grandma (but unfortunately it was unsuccessful because the DNA in the bones was decomposed.)

I was wondering why TheGypsy was so "responsive" to the comment...

Regards.

reladv wrote:

I was wondering why TheGypsy was so "responsive" to the comment...

Regards.

Because I'm a search geek... it's Google's stated mission to control..erm..index the world's information - I suppose that means out DNA as well...

.... just being cheeky