Google's Cache 1969??

ba1145 · #1 (**permalink**) 11-09-2004, 11:19 PM

I am wondering if anyone can explain this, Google has ignored my new site for weeks..now It's indexed 208 or so pages but the cache date is Dec. 31 1969 I am new to this and any response would be greatly appreciated...

,This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.gnnetcom-headsets.com/cat...products_id=38 as retrieved on 31 Dec 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.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only. G

minstrel · #2 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 03:46 AM

Others are reporting this problem too: see this thread at Digital Point where Shawn notes that the odd date is the result of a timestamp = 0.

Another poster there points out that all the "bad timestamps" are for supplementary pages.

Not clear what is going on here.

One thing odd I did notice about your site (apart from a lot of wierd looking coding in your HTML) was that you have a cookie set to expire November 19, 1981 -- or 23 years ago.

ba1145 · #3 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 12:36 PM

Thanks for the reply.. I think the weird code is a result of OS Commerce that was used to develop the site. But if you could elaborate I would greatly appreciate it. We are devolping a html generator that takes the os commerce database and creates the HTML version of the site. I am not a developer myself but will pass on the info to my developers.

I couldn't fine the cookie you are refering to even after logging in and out of my site.

Claud · #4 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 12:52 PM

Well that means for sure that something is happening with Google, it started having this "retro style" :)). One day you'll see that there's no page rank, the back links won't count and so on.
I'm just really curious what would GSanta bring this year.

simonm · #5 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 12:59 PM

Looks like a version of the millenium bug. eg date = Dec 31 1969 23:59 plus counter. In this case the counter has failed so you are seeing the base or starting date.

Perhaps they were using a 4 byte word to store date?

minstrel · #6 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1145

Thanks for the reply.. I think the weird code is a result of OS Commerce that was used to develop the site. But if you could elaborate I would greatly appreciate it. We are devolping a html generator that takes the os commerce database and creates the HTML version of the site...

Well, "wierd code" may be a bit strong but yes it did look like something left over from some sort of template or "site-builder" software.

Quote:

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html dir="LTR" lang="en">

The DOCTYPE declaration is incomplete (won't affect spidering but it is nonehteless) -- needs the URL for the W3C "standards" added.

Quote:

<META NAME="Reply-to" CONTENT="sales@cyrand.com">
<META NAME="Description" Content="GN Netcom Addvantage 805 Ultra Flex Noise Canceling Binaural Headset We Sell GN Netcom Headsets">
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="GN Addvantage 805 Ultra Flex Noise Canceling Binaural Headset, under the chin, over the ear headsets GNNETCOM,LIBERATION,WIRELESS,HEADSET,HEADSETS,ELLI PSE,GN9120">
<title> GN Netcom GN 805 Ulta Flex Noise Canceling Binaural under the chin behind the ne</title>

You have a whole lot of comment tags for the spiders to wade through... I mean a whole lot, and some duplicated and some empty. The title tag there is messed up, starting with the space before the title and including wasted words "under the, behind the" and an incomplete word at the end.

Quote:

empty comment tags like this one...

Quote:

duplicate ones like these...

Code:

<tr>








     </tr>

wasted space and blank lines like the above...

Quote:

more duplication...

Just a lot of junk, basically, that doesn't need to be there. Spiders are pretty good at wading through junk but why not try to make it easy for them to find the stuff you want indexed? Deleting these will also reduce page size and increase load speed...

Quote:

I couldn't fine the cookie you are refering to even after logging in and out of my site.

Maybe that's aleftover, too, but you can see it in the headers returned by your server:

http://www.delorie.com/web/headers.c...oducts_id%3D38

Quote:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:20:56 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.40 (Red Hat Linux)
Accept-Ranges: bytes
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.2.2
Set-Cookie: osCsid=7ab07889220ea3396cb061de3bb5d3b6; path=/catalog/; domain=www.gnnetcom-headsets.com
Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT
Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0
Pragma: no-cache
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-

ba1145 · #7 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 03:56 PM

Thanks very much minstrel I appreciate your help!!

TimM · #8 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 06:45 PM

Looks like it'd be the unix epoch (00:00:00 GMT, January 1, 1970). I don't know why it would be one second off it though. There's probably some bug in Google's crawler that doesn't add a date, therefore the automatic epoch.

I wonder if that bug could be caused by the expired cookie? It would be interesting to see if other sites with expired cookies have that as well.

(I just checked a few supplemental results and they have the correct timestamp, so it's not that)

The thread over at DP mentions a site as well - http://www.tomisimo.org/about.html. This has a 301 redirect to http://www.tomisimo.org/about/, so I checked the headers of this page. Sure enough, I found the following:

Quote:

Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT

Thats exactly the same date on the example given earlier in this thread - but a totally different site.

I could be wrong, this could be totally unreleated, but has anyone got any other examples of incorrect caching dates that we can test? Furthermore, where does the 19th Nov 1981 come from? :?

kikkertm · #9 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 06:46 PM

Just for info - a cookie that expires far in the past is quite normal. It's just a way to expire a cookie immediately so it's only valid for that browser session.

PikoTech · #10 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 07:41 PM

I posted this one yesterday http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=31504 even if it was in the wrong forum.

Read my story, not quite the same, but it certainly looks like something to do with the "google sandbox" or perhaps even "rougue server"... Nah, surely not!

This is from a windows based server using ASP, over several pages, some of which use cookies, some don't.

At the moment I'm beginning to think the Google Sandbox is either having updates done, or has gone quite wrong due to something they have they've done over at Mountain View without noticing this side-effect.

anablake · #11 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 11:19 PM

and how does this effect the positioning of our sites on this oh so great search engine?

Sites that have no expiration dates in their headers are having the same issues.

I see all the pointers directing to the webdesign as being at fault. But what about Google? Maybe too much pressure from the shareholders?

I wish that Google could be deflated to where they belong, just another search engine, instead of the God like image they currently possess.

A shame. A damned shame.

When I reflect back to 1992 and my first happening on the net, the monopolies were minor, but we knew, it was only a matter of time.

If your going to do it, do it right.

Google, take a step back and re-algorithm your beginning in this endeavor.

Then again, with these dates, maybe that is what they are doing :)

minstrel · #12 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 11:33 PM

Before y'all get over-heated and run off with another "Google is broken" thread:

1. we do not yet know what is causing this glitch
2. it clearly has something to do with dates -- it may be a Google database problem, or a problem with the new Googlebot, or a problem with the headers returned by certain servers, or something else
3. it clearly is not preventing sites from being indexed and cached -- all it is doing is displaying an incorrect date for WHEN it was cached
4. the error is of recent origin and will very likely be fixed / disappear as quickly as it appeared
5. the sun WILL set tonight and rise again tomorrow morning

PikoTech · #13 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minstrel

5. the sun WILL set tonight and rise again tomorrow morning

Of course it will :)

To be honest, I couldn't care less about that website, or what Google thinks about it - Truth be known it's out of date and not being used.

I just thought it was interesting to note.

Although, anablake, I can't see it being my coding which is to blame at all. I have several websites all coded in the same way and don't have this problem.

The first link on my original thread is also to a page on my domain which is part of forum software developed by someone else.

Any more suggestions / interesting theories?

anablake · #14 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 12:04 AM

Piko :)

Exactly as I said, it's not the coding of the website... as far as I can detect with the research I've done...

Yes, the sun will rise and set again...

How fast Google will correct this is another issue...

The effect is has on our positioning in searches has yet to be determined...

At this time of year, retail sites can be gravely effected by this "glitch"...

I am only so damned glad at this stage that our sites are diversified on about 300 search engines and indexes...

I would hate to put all my eggs in the Google basket...

:)

Ana

PikoTech · #15 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 12:10 AM

anablake,

Strange you mention that. :)

As you might have noticed, that website appears nowhere in the google index for any obvious keywords (okay, granted there aren't a lot of backlinks to it).

But on the new MSN Search it shows up as the top result for the keywords multiplayer and game. Which would generate about 3000 extra visitors per month on my calculations if the new MSN Search was to launch today.

Hopefully this should highlight for some of the other users that google isn't everything, and there is indeed life beyond google. :)

anablake · #16 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 12:19 AM

Piko,

How about Yahoo? Seems that they are rather pure in searches from what I've seen and experienced.

Ana

PikoTech · #17 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 12:30 AM

Doesn't appear anywhere near the top for the keywords I mentioned. However for 3d multiplayer game it shows up as number 14.

This does provide quite an insight into the different attitudes / workings of these 3 search engines though.

minstrel · #18 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anablake

The effect is has on our positioning in searches has yet to be determined...

At this time of year, retail sites can be gravely effected by this "glitch"...

What reason do you have to suspect this will have ANY effect on search results? As I said, apparently pages are still being indexed and cached. Not too long ago, there was no date on the cached page -- now for some pages there's an incorect date. So what? It's a curiosity, for sure, but it's not a catastrophe...

Tjaart · #19 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 10:01 AM

F.Y.I, if anybody is interested, my website went from 14 Google indexed pages (top level pages) to 284 of which the original 14 shows an uptodate cache (with date) and the balance shows the pages as they were when I first uploaded them with the 1969 date. It looks like google has "restored" an old back-up of the cache or something like that. I know the odd pages have been indexed (scanned) since, just never shown in the SERPs.

The 270 odd pages also includes indexed pages from 3 other domains of mine which are 301 redirected to my main website. These never showed up in SERPs until now.

Also an AllinURL:www.siam-excursions.com used to give me more than 30 results (including external sites), but this morning went down to 14 internal pages only and then up to 284 "internal" pages only. None from any external sites shows up any more.

Somehow someone at Google f'ed up.

I was expecting an PR update and got this in return. :-(

Tjaart
Siam Excursions

[/url]

PikoTech · #20 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tjaart

It looks like google has "restored" an old back-up of the cache or something like that.

You know what, in a way that makes sense... Maybe they have also removed all the sites from their "sandbox" to double their index.

Hmmm, if that is the case (and it does look like it may be true) then I feel kind of cheated. :S

mattbrundage · #21 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 06:49 PM

Ah. I just noticed this myself. I hope this isn't a widespread problem with Google.

~Matt