Hacker News Reader

Isn't the point that Google caches the site, and the visitor loads the caches SXG data from Google, and they never hit the server of the site itself. It's like AMP on steroids. It definitely doesn't count as a visit for the site in question.

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/signed-...

View on HN

I wouldn't know because it was not explained at all, in the title or in the link (at least for me, I'm on firefox so it doesn't load much, or give any explanation).

But if it's true that google is caching the page themselves, then yes you're right and I did not even consider that. Thanks

Yes, exactly - well put.

The key difference from AMP is that the site signs the content and it’s attributed to their origin, not Google’s. So, while it’s served from Google’s cache, it still counts as the publisher’s page in terms of origin and trust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com