Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Search Engine NOCACHE by default proposal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open I guess

[edit]

Since people seem to want it open. rootology (C)(T) 08:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor

[edit]

I have remove the poll to allow discussion. People, we need to chew on things not vote, otherwise we get polarisation without discussion. This issue is new to a lot of folks, so let's give it time. If we must poll, we can do it in a few days/weeks.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm?

[edit]

I'm thinking that the description of Obama's article as being a "slightly prominent BLP article" is meant to be sarcasm? MickMacNee (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understatement is a standard component of humor. --Carnildo (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our chief weapon is understatement. Hyperbole and understatement. Understatement and hyperbole. Our two weapons are hyperbole and understatement... and ruthless efficiency. rootology (C)(T) 23:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this actually work?

[edit]

Note that NOCACHE'd stuff still has a bit of text from the page on the search results page, there's just no cached version link. --Random832 (contribs) 13:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood every word you said. Unfortunately that was every individual word. I failed when I tried it as a sentence. Now obviously it's not you, it's me but could you please have another try? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

So would this stop google from indexing Wikipedia totally? Bsimmons666 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what's it do than? Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It prevents, if implemented, Google from saving in its cache a copy of the page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thanks. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Many people have misunderstood this completely. You asked. They did not always. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better idea

[edit]

Why can't we just trigger some sort of warning to come up on the top like we do for revision view on the main site? Like force a message on the top saying something like:

ViperSnake151 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because that would be "fooling search engines" in some way.
The right idea is better anti-vandalisim detection and correction. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing, Google already has a warning on cache pages, that serves the same purpose. --Rob (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]