Clicking On The Cached Link, Does It Count? Options

[swainzy]

When I click on the cached v ersion of a page, does it show up in logs or any other kind of tracking?

[randfish]

It would only show up in logs if the file requests for images are made. The cached text and code exists on Google's servers, so those requests wouldn't be counted.

Donna - did you mean the cached version in your browser, or the cached version from the search engines?

This post has been edited by randfish: Oct 9 2007, 12:46 PM

[yannis]

Try this for an experiment. Disconnect your computer from the internet. Navigate to a page that you sure the browser has cached such as Google. If you see the page it means that the server doesn't know about it - since you are disconnected from the internet. (Most versions of ie will show the cache, FF doesn't).


Yannis

[swainzy]

Hi Rand and Yannis,

It would only show up in logs if the file requests for images are made.

Hmmm. So if I were searching by images (which, by the way, is how I shop), it would show up on a log file. I wonder why just images?

Thanks

[Ruud]

It's not just images. Google keeps a text copy of the page. All files external to that page are not cached: external JavaScript and stylesheets, images, video, Flash, etc.

[swainzy]

Rand,

A search engine search. I almost always click on cached as it's highlighted and I can find what I"m looking for easily in a long page of text but was wondering if it shows up in people's logs.

[AbleReach]

I almost always click on cached as it's highlighted and I can find what I"m looking for easily in a long page of text but was wondering if it shows up in people's logs.

Donna, I do that, too. It can be a real time-saver, especially if the link looks like it will have a lot of text that is not in a single article-like item, like a multi-post blog page or part of a site with a lot of navigation links.

I wonder how common this is.

[JohnMu]

Google Analytics runs as Javascript on your page, it runs on cached pages as well ... but does it count visits from the "wrong" URL? It should be easy to test

John

[BizDevMarketing]

Swainzy, my understanding is that a view of a cached version will most often be tracked, whether it shows up as "no referrer" or "www.theirsite.com," depending on what kind of tracking they are using; live vs. server logs, etc.

It would only show up in logs if the file requests for images are made.

Hmmm. So if I were searching by images (which, by the way, is how I shop), it would show up on a log file. I wonder why just images?

This just means that if the the site you are viewing utilizes any images or other external files like CSS, flash, etc, that the view will then be recorded. (Regardless of whether you're searching images.) A visit to the text only version will be recorded by Google's server, but once files are requested, the request appears in the log.

Your safe from tracking if...
a: the site your viewing has no external files
and/or
b: you don't click any links
c: you utilize an anonymous proxy

These might be helpful...

A (long) thread at webmasterworld about caches and tracking

Comments by Michael Fagan, titled Don't Use Google's Cache as Anonymous Surf (from 2003, but still applicable)

Cheers,
Megan

[Pittbug]

I have a filter set up to push the exact referring URL into my user defined list and it does show. If you also have referrer tracking enabled you can search for "cache" and see a bunch of entries. Here's a screenshot:



This post has been edited by Pittbug: Oct 10 2007, 01:06 PM

[swainzy]

Megan,
Thanks! That explains it pretty well for me. I appreciate your time and Pittbug's. And Pittbug thanks for the visuals.

[AbleReach]

Interesting.
On the surface, .67% of site total isn't much but the bounce rate on that slice isn't bad at all.

Thanks for sharing, Pittburg.

[Pittbug]

AbleReach: Bare in mind my blog is in the SEM space. I think a good portion of the readers are somewhat SEO savvy, so those stats may not relate to a client site selling to the average consumer.