Google is axing cached webpages from search results, tells everyone to use Internet Archive instead

News
By Christopher Harper
published

Cache links have been removed from search results, but you can still use "cache:URL" in Google Search...for now

The Google logo on a background of circles
(Image credit: Google, Malte Luk)

You aren't alone if you've been making Google searches these past few months and noticed missing cache results. On February 1st, 2024, Google's Search Liaison on Twitter officially confirmed that the feature has been axed. A quick and convenient link to cached versions of a webpage from the Google search result has been a staple of the search engine for well over a decade, but now it seems the most accessible version of the feature is gone entirely.

Technically, Google still archives search pages— for now. You can still use the "archive:[URL]" function in a Google search to pull up Google's latest archived copy of a given webpage. The image embedded below shows us using this command for the Tom's Hardware front page, since the original function is no longer available. According to the Search Liaison, this version of the feature is soon to disappear, too.

A screenshot of Google's most recent cached copy of the Tom's Hardware main page as of writing this article.

(Image credit: Google, Tom's Hardware)

So, what are the alternatives for those of us who still need to access cached versions of webpages for whatever reason? The staple Internet Archive (archive.org) can't be ignored in this discussion, and Search Liaison Danny Sullivan directly mentions it as an alternative in the original tweet. Sullivan also hopes that higher-ups at Google consider working out a deal with Internet Archive to replace the old Google archive link in search results, but says "no promises" within the same tweet.

Besides falling back on Archive.org, users of the Google search engine may actually be pushed to consider Bing because of this change. Unlike Google, the Bing search engine still supports cached web pages right from the main result, so that's now at least one objective win for the cultured Bing enjoyers out there.

Overall, this news isn't world-shaking or anything since there are still alternatives to Google's cache, and it still technically works today. However, preserving the history of the Internet and its media is an ongoing challenge, and removing a vital preservation tool will only make that more difficult in the long term. As-is, Archive.org used to be the fallback you'd go to if Google cache didn't have the webpage version you needed— but before long, it'll become the de facto choice now that Google is stepping out of the game.

Christopher Harper
13 Comments Comment from the forums
  • ThomasKinsley
    Once a mainstay of Internet archiving, Google Cache fell out of favor 6-8 years ago. I noticed this when trying to access cached pages and it almost never worked.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    I hope more members of the public step up and support archive.org. As is, it seems like they're operating on a shoestring budget. I always make sure to include them in my year-end donations.
    https://archive.org/donate
    I really hope Google will also support them, but I'm sure any support they provide will be far less than they internally spent on their page caching.
    Reply
  • emike09
    I noticed cached pages disappearing from search results starting a couple of years ago. I used these frequently, usually when a website was down or having issues, or to view a version of a page that had redacted information. Archive.org is still awesome, just a bit slower and less convenient.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    Your browser may not be compatible with all the features on this site. Consider upgrading to a modern browser for an improved experience.

    The Internet Archive doesn't like Edge...
    Reply
  • TCA_ChinChin
    bit_user said:
    I hope more members of the public step up and support archive.org. As is, it seems like they're operating on a shoestring budget. I always make sure to include them in my year-end donations.
    https://archive.org/donate
    I really hope Google will also support them, but I'm sure any support they provide will be far less than they internally spent on their page caching.
    Archive.org and Wikipedia are two places I never feel bad for donating to.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    Google is going to requisition resources to spy on us more. Saving caches doesn't make them any money.

    Stealing your data does.
    Reply
  • cam menter
    As the outliers of the golden age of media/data fall, soon there will be but a single central source for these remnants of history, and the archive is already at risk of being dismantled by greedy publishers and other well financed sources bent on the destruction of data that doesn't suite their taste or make them richer.
    Reply
  • yeyibi
    The cache was frequently the only way to access a webpage, and frequently the fastest way.
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    archive.ph is my go to, archive.org (waybackmachine), is too slow, but it is my last ditch hope when all others fail.
    Reply
  • salgado18
    bit_user said:
    I hope more members of the public step up and support archive.org. As is, it seems like they're operating on a shoestring budget. I always make sure to include them in my year-end donations.
    https://archive.org/donate
    I really hope Google will also support them, but I'm sure any support they provide will be far less than they internally spent on their page caching.
    If Google redirects to archive.org, they should pay for the massive traffic that will come. Maybe it will be enough for them to stay afloat without donations, but what would Google demand in return?
    Reply