4 ms·
cached version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.avos.com%2Fdelicious-press-release%2F http://we
by citricsquid 16y ago
cached version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.avos.com%2Fdelicious-press-release%2F http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome... and in case that goes, image: http://i.imgur.com/voNw9.png http://i.imgur.com/voNw9.png
- RyanKearney 16y agoAlso, probably a better source here: http://blog.delicious.com/ http://blog.delicious.com/
- guynamedloren 16y agothanks for this!
- mdaniel 16y agoI believe Coral CDN (http://coralcdn.org/ http://coralcdn.org/) is a superior way of surviving a front-page placement on HN. AFAIK, all page assets are cached with Coral, not just the page as GoogleBot sees it. In this particular case it probably didn't matter as much, but for your consideration, anyway.
- apperoid 16y agoCoralCDN is far more superior. AKAIK, one its main main goals is to help survive front-page placements on popular sites. Its also far more easier to use. Since you mention it here is the CoralCDN for this article: http://www.avos.com.nyud.net/delicious-press-release/ http://www.avos.com.nyud.net/delicious-press-release/ . The only problem I find with CoralCDN is that if you try accessing a URL that is already down with CoralCDN and has not been cached by Coral it probably won't work. The Google cache would be far more effective in such a case.