Google cache from 1969?

Ok this is pretty chill. This page was crawled by Google for the first time about a month ago, and again a few days ago. Check out the date on this I never thought G was broken, but maybe they still have some bugs to work out! If you want to see this for yourself, do a site: with my domain and the kw tomisimo and look at G's cache of some of the lower pages.

Here's the link directly to the cached page
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...ut.html++site:www.tomisimo.org+tomisimo&hl=en

 

That's funny stuff man.

I wonder why that has happened?

 

It seems to get the date wrong on all the results that have the "Supplemental Result" tag in G. I couldn't find anywhere that G comments on supplemental results, ie http://www.google.com/help/interpret.html, but there are lots of comments on the web saying they are pages that no longer exist. But that is not entirely correct, because some of those pages DO exist, and the ones that don't have 301's to the new pages. Plus the biggie, but why the wrong date?

Edit: ('cause I'm the last poster)

OK, I'll buy that, but why would they be recording a timestamp of 0? I assume it would be a bug in their s/w.

 

Supplemental Pages are not pages that no longer exist. Rather, they seem to be pages that Google considers to be less important/relevant or secondary information or secondary in importance to the pages listed in the main index.

 

I have supplementals listed. Pages deep in my site that hardly ever get looked at.

 

Really funny, might be the first time I see Google is obviously wrong

 

Hush your mouth, hurricane. Google is never wrong. I think people just aren't constructing their dates correctly...

 

Ok, sounds good. I had googled for "supplemental result" and got some seo forums (inc. seochat) where people were adamant that it meant pages that no longer exist.
Thanks.

 

You'll often see it on large sites (e.g., hundreds or thousands of product pages) where the main pages might make it into the main Google index and the rest are consigned to the Supplemental Index... I'm no database expert but I assume it's a way of increasing search efficiency... also I first started noticing them around the time of the big announcement that the Google index had now increased to 4 billion and a million thousand pages... possibly related to having a lot of crap to wade through and not wanting to sacrifice search efficiency... if so, I would assume that pages in the Supplemental Index may have less information about the page cached... if so, that might explain why the error is showing up for those pages and not pages in the regular index.

 

this being the case....then i can only summise that google returns results "arse about face"....
it wants to return better results...so it should return the lower levels of a site "the specific content" pages?...and not the home page?
instead it calls them supplementals

most sites are built on a structure of home page..that sub divides into categories,,and then content...i would want more emphasis on content pages coming up.
or am i getting this wrong?

GEM

 

Depending on which search terms you use, the home page may not be the most relevant result for Google to return.

Beyond that, if you want to wade through the thread Shawn mentioned, you'll see there's a lot of speculation and not much hard fact when it comes to the Supplemental Results. I'm suggesting a possible explanation for why those bad dates are showing up for Supplemental Results only (assuming that's correct) but I wouldn't bet my first-born on it and it certainly isn't the only possible explanation.

 

This is to funny. I just got a google alert about my website and within this alert it was showing the new cache of one of my blogs.

The cache reads as retrieved on Dec 31, 1969 23:59:59 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.

Here is the page http://www.las-vegas-homefinder.com/realestate/2004/09/las-vegas-real-estate-team-do-they.htm

This is to funny. What is google up to? I dont understand this cache date or year.

 

MMmm, odd, thats the Unix Epoch if I am not mistaken... means a date wasn't properly set, or the date was 99999999999 (or 00000000000)

 

Yes, that's correct. It's a missing or bad date value. Why it's there on some sites is another question -- with no definitive answer yet although there has been speculation galore (see various "Google is Broken" or "Google's Index is Full" threads here and elsewhere for some samples).

 

1969? wow.

 

I knew it all along. Google started out as a military operation...now they are going to take over the world...here is proof:

"The ancestor of the Internet was the ARPANET, a project funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in 1969. The ARPANET was both an experiment in reliable networking and an effort to link DOD and military research contractors, including the large number of universities doing military-funded research."

 

ok, I posted this over at the only other place I like to hang out and thought I would post it here as well:

I am trying very hard to figure out why this one site I run cannot, even with a prayer, rank well in Google. Sigh....

of 7000+ referrals this month a grand total of freakin 125ish came from G. MSN and Yahoo kicked G's butt with a baseball bat and club...lol

This is a big problem that I must reluctantly acknowledge. The site is now 7 months old and should be beyond the box. This implies something much more is going on. Especially after losing the one and only mid/major KW with close to decent rankings that went from 200+ to 85 to no where to be found in the top 1000.

There is one site showing up in my search site:www.mysite.com that isn't even in my site. It looks like its using a php script and delivering my home page from its servers with live links and all. The home page delivered is about 2 months old. I am curious if this could be the primary culpret of my ranking blues. A penalty of some type. Maybe outta the box and into the fryer? hehehe... Not sure, but none of my pages I checked show the 1969 cache date that would imply a major problem like this......

I would definitely like to get some thoughts and feedback from some of the most experienced and successful G optimizers here to review the site for potential G sticking points both on site and external. Please PM Me if you're willing to help.

Now to the heart of the post. I was researching, as noted, in an effort to identify outside influences and found quite a few sites using content from primarily the home page on this site.

When I check the cache date, everyone of them had the 1969 date, so this would indicate a part of this 1969 cache filter is for duplicate content and how G must be flagging it.

Those who have truly original content, and the 1969 date on a page, may want to look for sites who are using your content. If you made one change to your page and it updated the date, the theif would now have the oldest original copy. Scary if correct in age factoring, however I am absolutely not certain of this as I have nothing to compare it to.

Additionally, I have issued quite a few press releases myself. In checking some of these links, I found those pages using the full article contained in the two press releases for this site ( remember, that showed up in my search ) all had the page showing 1969 cache date. I found this very interesting.

Finally, we've all seen the "link farm" adsense sites that try to steal your link and description to create money from adsense. Well, every one but two of them that I checked (both owned by the same guy/gal) had the 1969 cache date....in addition, quite a few other sites with pages primarily full of links, but they looked like regular "Directory" pages, using adsense with no real content had the 1969 date.

Its only important as the duplicate hurts you big time if you are the original author and paying the price, the press releases may have lost the usability factor for back links with G and junk sites, even ones that give you a live link, appear they will no longer give benefit in links and are now considered link farms. Most importantly, it would seem anyone that links to the above type sites/pages with the 1969 cache date should be getting kicked for the "bad neighborhood" penalty if the rule applies generically with no grandfathering.

Might this not "Lucy, you got some splain'in to do" address the sudden shift everyone/many have seen and felt in the serps. Like G applying the 69 filter penalizing those sites found and flagged as "Bad Neighborhoods". Some regained rank. Was the rank regained after possibly changes were made to the flagged pages/pages removed or links removed by either webmaster? etc. etc.?

After all, why would G need to use the December (whatever day as I seem to recall seeing a few) 1969 otherwise? Isn't 69 a sexual reference telling you you're getting F*c*ed? Did the algo change hit in December? Maybe the date changed as the projection for applying it got pushed back or moved up. Maybe the date initially or eventually incorporated the PR update that occurred December 31st. Maybe that was the sarcastic, and I'm certain if so, humerous inside Google joke.

G engineers telling the coders via code in using the the date that in december we're gonna spank you and in this month if you link to this site, or have a link to this page or own this page....you're gonna get it if you don't get rid of it. In return, we're also gonna give you a PR update in this month on this day so we can double your SEO misery...lol

That may be all this recent algo flux is. The application of the 69 filter to take out spam and trash sites along with those that link and in some cases inadvertantly support them. While G does not communicate with us as to the algo, maybe the engineers did in a humerous D-Day cache warning. How sick would that be.... We should start our own little motto from "He's gone postal" to "he's gone google". It would only take a few webmasters and SEO's to go down to a few G offices to do it....and at this rate I fear some or you might be thinking about it....LMBO

Yes yes yes...pure speculation and just another conspiracy theory to boot.... Hey did you hear MSN is buying out google shareholders in return for a lifetime supply of floppy disks containing windows 95 o/s with free upgrades to windows 98?

LOVE TO GET YOUR Thoughts on this as I move through the day.

Cheers

 

It seems I have found something that may be interesting. I persoanlly find that these 1969 cache dates are all showing on the pages that Google has indexed from my Blog.

As it was suggested could this be Googles way of saying that 1. There is a duplicate of this page on the internet. 2. A filter is now placed on your website for Duplicate content to advise others who may wish to link with you.

It makes sense to me anyway. The only pages I have this cahce date on are my Blog pages that are indexed in Google. Any Thoughts?