3 ms·
I don't believe so, I think instead that the text-only cache you're seeing is what is showed to all clients with javascript disabled. They use javascript to sho
by nightpool 13y ago
I don't believe so, I think instead that the text-only cache you're seeing is what is showed to all clients with javascript disabled. They use javascript to show the annotations on the page and as a fall back they have a stand-alone page that shows the annotation. The same thing happens on a mobile browser, because they don't have the screen real estate to show the annotation in context. So, no, not cloaking, just actual no-javascript accessibility. Something a lot more sites should be doing, in my opinion.
Even if this was a Googlebot-only page, it still wouldn't be cloaking, as they're just showing a more search-engine friendly version of the same content that's in the annotation on the actual page.
- Ihaveaproblem 13y agoI have never heard of Google keeping cache's of pages in javascript-disabled states, Googlebot has been processing JS for a long time. And how many users (even considering mobile) really don't have JS these days? This may not be by-the-definition cloaking, but it's right up on the line for sure.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Casseres 13y agoI and quite a few other HN users use NoScript. It blocks JavaScript per domain name automatically unless you whitelist it. It's great for privacy and security.
- DanBC 13y agoI'd be interested in numbers, but maybe 3% of users turn off JavaScript. http://stackoverflow.hewgill.com/questions/121/108.html http://stackoverflow.hewgill.com/questions/121/108.html