Do we have a timeline of google, bing updates
-
I thought it would be handy if we had a timeline with dates of any updates to the algo's.
Does one exists here at SEOMoz or elsewhere.
Thanks -
Sure, if you have the relevant data at hand I can get my team to visualize it.
-
Thanks guys. what would be good is if SEOMOZ make a timeline page. it makes it easier to answer questions about lost rankings and such without havinfg to look them up each time.
-
I can't edit this post at the moment for some reason, but will include Vince when I can. This was definitely a big change, can't believe I forgot!
-
Nice. Can you do one for all the way back to 2003?
-
Hopefully the following infographic will shed some light
http://www.elevatelocal.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/google-algorithm-infographic.jpg
-
Great timeline!!!
I add 1 big Google update you've miss: Vince update in 2009 (February/March 2009), aka the Nig Brand Rank Update...
I believe it is important as, imho, we must see in it the 1st step of the actual updates.
-
Nice list.
These are the really big updates - the ones that are big enough that they grabbed the SEO community's attention. However, small updates occur a few times each week. These are small tweaks that gently steer and correct between major updates.
-
I don't think it exists really, but I reckon we can piece things together
2000 - 2003 :- Practically monthly updates, pretty much shooting in the dark to remember what it was the changes as I don't think anybody really understood things as fully nor monitored as closely.
Feb 2003 :- First 'named' update, Boston.
April 2003 :- Cassandra
May 2003 :- Dominic
June 2003 :- Esmerelda
November 2003 :- FLORIDA! Boom, this was the first one that made SEO what it is today. It started ranking sites in a way that nobody could fully work out. It blasted the spammers (although many quality pages were also effected if they were using the same over-optimisation/ stuffing techniques) and started the link race game that we have today.
January 2004 :- Austin. Hammered some more sites in a Florida type fashion. Seemed to introduce the QDF factor.
February 2004 :- Brandy.
February 2005 :- Allegra.
September 2005 :- Something funny happens here
October 2005 : - JAGGER! First step in the fight back against the new link currency. Recipricol links devalued, link farms devalued, paid links (where detected) penalised and/or devalued. Sandbox changes to make it harder to rank for new sites.
October 2005 :- Jagger 2. Domain age seems to play a bigger part of the algorithm.
October 2005 :- Jagger 3. Refinements to the first 2.
December 2005 to March 2006 :- BIG DADDY! Algorithm change to evaluate link trust. Non-thematic links, lots of recipricol links, lots of links on a page, lots of links from low quality sites all
August 2006 :- Lots of little things.
November 2006 :- Lots of minus position penalties for unnatural looking link profiles.
June 2007 :- Buffy. Not a real update apparently but there was one earlier that month which I think added some ridiculous penalties of up to -950!
April 2008 :- Dewey. Massive changes depending on what data centre you went through and changed SERPs multiple time each day. Google may have also given a cheeky little boost to their own intellectual property... Also think it was this one that started to stink up the UK search results with loads of foreign sites (not as xenophobic as it sounds, lol).
August 2008 :- Devalued exact anchor text links?
March 2009 :- VINCE! Also known as the brand update. Google gave a significant boost for sites that had a 'brand' (under the guise of 'trust'). Ultimately this moved the playing field to give the advantage to bigger sites with bigger budgets. Requires SEOs to improve visibility across sites to show that they're not a fly-by-night organisation. [Thanks Gianluca]
January 2010 :- Caffeine. Fresher results, more verticals, real time. Algorithm itself doesn't seem to change much. More of a sys admin change than anything.
May 2010 :- MAY DAY. Smacked some thin affiliates and pages with no content (auto-generated pages without products specifically).
December 2010 :- Started taking into account poor reviews and penalising those merchants. Black hats get to work reviewing their competitors. Perhaps the start of a bigger sentiment change with them also using Facebook and Twitter (though if that were the case I'd expect to never see Virgin Media in the search results :D).
January 2011 :- Content farms that scrape content take a hit. Harbinger of Panda.
March to April 2011 :- PANDA! Hammers (some) content farms.
All right, I'm probably missing lots of big ones, but if other people want to contribute I'm sure we can do something with this
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Does Bing fully support SNI yet?
We're working on enabling SNI on a large number of ecommerce websites, however I've read that Bingbot has real issues with SNI. There was a 'through-the-grapevine' response from Microsoft in April 2015 saying it was supposedly going to be fixed "within the next 6 months," but I can't find anything that corroborates that. There was also an article on SEL in July 2015 that basically said that microsoft may have pushed a fix out, but that there were still lingering issues.
Algorithm Updates | | simon.serrano0 -
Strange Google SERP Layout: Anyone?
I haven't been able to repeat this, but I just saw a strange Google SERP layout. The screenshot is attached below. Has anyone else seen something like this? I kind of rubbed my eyes and wondered 'if it was kicking in'. ca2JqaP
Algorithm Updates | | Travis_Bailey0 -
Fetch as Google in GWT - Functionality
Hi, For example, some of the HTML improvements notices from GWT, says dupe meta descriptions or titles, for pages that have since been 301 redirected or had a canonical tag added. So, my idea is to force google to read it using "Fetch as Google" - hoping that it will now see 301 redirection or the fix we have implemented. Does this work? How long does it take? Lastly, should I just click the "fetch as google" or should I also click on the "Submit to index" button? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | bjs20100 -
Page details in Google Search
I noticed this morning a drop in the SERPs for a couple of my main keywords. And even though this is a little annoying the more pressing matter is that Google is not displaying the meta title I have specified for the majority of my sites pages, despite one being specified and knowing my site has them in place. Could this sudden change to not using my specified title be the cause of the drop, and why would they be being displayed by Google in the first place, when they are there to be used. The title currently being displayed inthe SERPs is not anything that has been specified in the past or from the previous latest crawl etc. Any insight would be appreciated. Tim
Algorithm Updates | | TimHolmes0 -
Do you think Google is destroying search?
I've seen garbage in google results for some time now, but it seems to be getting worse. I was just searching for a line of text that was in one of our stories from 2009. I just wanted to check that story and I didn't have a direct link. So I did the search and I found one copy of the story, but it wasn't on our site. I knew that it was on the other site as well as ours, because the writer writes for both publications. What I expected to see was the two results, one above the other, depending on which one had more links or better on-page for the query. What I got didn't really surprise me, but I was annoyed. In #1 position was the other site, That was OK by me, but ours wasn't there at all. I'm almost used to that now (not happy about it and trying to change it, but not doing well at all, even after 18 months of trying) What really made me angry was the garbage results that followed. One site, a wordpress blog, has tag pages and category pages being indexed. I didn't count them all but my guess is about 200 results from this blog, one after the other, most of them tag pages, with the same content on every one of them. Then the tag pages stopped and it started with dated archive pages, dozens of them. There were other sites, some with just one entry, some with dozens of tag pages. After that, porn sites, hundreds of them. I got right to the very end - 100 pages of 10 results per page. That blog seems to have done everything wrong, yet it has interesting stats. It is a PR6, yet Alexa ranks it 25,680,321. It has the same text in every headline. Most of the headlines are very short. It has all of the category and tag and archive pages indexed. There is a link to the designer's website on every page. There is a blogroll on every page, with links out to 50 sites. None of the pages appear to have a description. there are dozens of empty H2 tags and the H1 tag is 80% through the document. Yet google lists all of this stuff in the results. I don't remember the last time I saw 100 pages of results, it hasn't happened in a very long time. Is this something new that google is doing? What about the multiple tag and category pages in results - Is this just a special thing google is doing to upset me or are you seeing it too? I did eventually find my page, but not in that list. I found it by using site:mysite.com in the search box.
Algorithm Updates | | loopyal0 -
Shortened Title in Google Places/Local Results in SERPs
I've been doing some local SEO lately and noticed something today. When I do a search for "State/town name Cat Toys", I see the title tag of the website in the local results as opposed to the business name. I'm happy they are showing up above the normal results, but I wonder if having the brand name at the end of the site title impacts clicks. For example: Site name: New Hampshire Cat Toys and Accessories | Cats R Us But in the places results the title is cut short because they show the address, so all they see is: New Hampshire Cat Toys and.... Do you think branding is especially important in local results? Or less important? I could hear arguments for both sides. I realize the site URL is shown in green below the title, but it's not the same as having a brand in the title portion. It also looks like some of the competition has just their name show up as opposed to their website title. Is this something I can fix in Google Places, or is something Google does on its own? Cheers, Vinnie
Algorithm Updates | | vforvinnie1 -
Google results on an Ipad 2
Has anyone else seen different google organic results for a site when viewing on an Ipad compared to computer browser ? I've just checked a site and were no1 on google when searched on the Ipad 2 but when searched on my Macbook we are page 2 ? Could this just be different data centers or do google serve up different results to the 2 devices ? Would be really interested to know if anyone else has seen this. JP
Algorithm Updates | | Prongo0 -
Google changing case of URLs in SERPs?
Noticed some strange behavior over the last week or so regarding our SERPs and I haven't been able to find anything on the web about what might be happening. Over the past two weeks, I've been seeing our URLs slowly change from upper case to lower case in the SERPs. Our URLs are usually /Blue-Fuzzy-Widgets.htm but Google has slowly been switching them to /blue-fuzzy-widgets.htm. There has been no change in our actual rankings nor has it happened to anyone else in the space. We're quite dumbfounded as to why Google would choose to serve the lower case URL. To be clear, we do not build links to these lower case URLs, only the upper. Any ideas what might be happening here?
Algorithm Updates | | Natitude0