Wikipedia talk:Search Engine NOCACHE by default proposal

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]

I have reinstated the comments, not least because one of the comments left was referencing a removed comment. I haven't reinstated the poll formatting though. Hiding T 09:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for restoring the comments. The removal of other people's comments was outrageous, and bordered on vandalism. --Rob (talk) 19:17, 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:

This is a cached copy of a Wikipedia article. It may have gone through revisions since the time it was published for cleanup, expansion, or removal of content in violation of Wikipedia policies. To view the current version of this article, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Search_Engine_NOCACHE_by_default_proposal.

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]