I am not understanding this. I have a bookmark that says "no cached" in August, followed by many that are cached. On Sept. 3, one of each. When did the new policy get implemented?
And could someone explain to me why it is much less useful if the sites are not cached? It seemed to me that the "no cached" and the cached sites were retrieved equally well when I tested just now. I have to admit I don't understand all the technological aspects.
Thanks, I think I get it now. This will definitely affect how and if I use Diigo in the classroom anymore. I encourage my students to use the subscriptions services our school has and not just depend on the web. If they can't bookmark to those sites, no point in using Diigo. I've been a Diigo cheerleader around here, but it hasn't spread. I will have to think about whether it's worth it to ask the school to pay.
I have to do some testing (when I have time!). With our subscription service we already had to seek out the "persistent URL" in order to get a working bookmark on Diigo, so it's possible that will still work even if the site is not cached.
I did my test, and bookmarks still seem to work with our subscription site (with password) if I follow the same procedure as before in using what now seems to be called the "document URL" and I have heard called in the past the "persistent URL."
And could someone explain to me why it is much less useful if the sites are not cached? It seemed to me that the "no cached" and the cached sites were retrieved equally well when I tested just now. I have to admit I don't understand all the technological aspects.