Wikipedia talk:Search Engine NOCACHE by default proposal

Open I guess
Since people seem to want it open. rootology ( C )( T ) 08:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Refactor
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Sarcasm?
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)


 * Understatement is a standard component of humor. --Carnildo (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Would this actually work?
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)


 * 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)

Question
So would this stop google from indexing Wikipedia totally? Bsimmons 666  (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So what's it do than? Bsimmons 666  (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It prevents, if implemented, Google from saving in its cache a copy of the page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, thanks. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Many people have misunderstood this completely.  You asked.  They did not always.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A better idea
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)


 * 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)

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