7 ms·
It might be equivalent, even faster, but that was not the problem he suggested he was solving for.
by brador 9y ago
It might be equivalent, even faster, but that was not the problem he suggested he was solving for.
- ZenoArrow 9y agoTo summarise, you suggest it's a waste of time, I ask how is it a waste of time to click on one version of a link over another, you suggest there's no difference in efficiency. The point I'm making is, GP is no worse off for using the Google Cache version. They might miss out on a few edits made after the page was cached, but in the grand scheme of things that's unlikely to matter.