[Today’s random Sourcerer profile: https://sourcerer.io/andrew]

As a student of history, I’m a firm believer that one of the most efficient ways in moving forward is by first understanding the past. This has and will always be something that I carry with myself into my professional life. Specifically speaking, I find that there is a lot of value when creating a product to understand/visualize/contemplate the changes, experiments, and decisions of others as it pertains to their user interface and experience online or within an app.

Because of this, I view the waybackmachine as an invaluable tool in my product creation process. I will even go as far as saying it’s required homework before bringing any idea/concept to the table. For me, it partly answers the question of “what’s been tried before?” and in knowing that, doing our best not to replicate the errors of the past.

So, as we are now live with open beta registration at Sourcerer and as we are facing some interesting issues, I wanted to take a step back and see how a couple of prominent sites have evolved over time. I’m hoping that this study will gleam a nugget or two of valuable information to help us evolve Sourcerer for the better.

I decided on choosing 4 sites, not all specifically related to what we’re doing at Sourcerer but definitely tangential to it in one way or another. I specifically chose Amazon, Facebook, Github, and Linkedin. I took the very first screenshot I could find available for them on the waybackmachine and then took the subsequent ones for every year up to 2017. For ease of comparison, I created a timeline graphic showcasing the homepages side by side through the years chronologically ordered. In a few cases, the waybackmachine misses style sheets but the content is still there for us to get value from.

So let’s begin.

Amazon

Full Amazon timeline available here.

Launching in 2004, Amazon has a great reputation of consistently improving and modifying their experience for better conversion. It’s highly likely that any of the captured screenshots is just one of many multivariate versions they have ran but I feel what thoughts we can extract are still be valuable.

Ignoring the various various design element changes throughout the years, I find the most interesting adjustments to be around their information architecture. A few consistencies stand out the most for me.

For 12 years, from 2000 to 2012 the left side navigation has always been present. Top header navigation has consistently changed every year. Adding, removing, and highlighting different navigational paths. Search doesn’t make an appearance in the top nav until 2012 which could be why left side navigation was removed. Footer navigation has consistently evolved over the years. In 2008 and 2009 only simple site specific links existed but in 2010 deep categorical links make an appearance and is carried on all the way to today. Cart and Account information has consistently been in the top nav but has slowly moved to the right hand side.

The above highlights a couple points for me. First, extensive testing on header navigation took place through the years. Business decisions obviously played a large roll here but what stands out to me are the choices they highlighted in this highly visible portion of the page. Specifically what started out as general categorical links (which I’m assuming has been A/B tested over time) they then move to the beginnings of personalization with navigation to “Your Store”, “Your Amazon.com”, and “Wish Lists”. Search also makes it’s appearance here in 2012 which leads me to believe the added navigation was either useless or less efficient. Second, “Sign in” and “Your Account” stand out more through the years. What starts out as equally weighted ends up being more prominent. Amazon as we know it today is highly personalized and these early changes if anything foreshadow this direction.

Facebook

Full Facebook timeline available here.

Launching in 2004 as well, I feel that Facebook has shown rather minimal changes in their presentation over the years. While for the most part unchanged, there are a few notable differences for us to take note of.

Signup form on the homepage started in 2009 and remain to this day. Green signup button color has been consistent from 2008 onward. Homepage signup form has largely been the same since 2012. Mobile number added to signup in 2012 and remains today. Value proposition “Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life” was consistent until 2014. Was updated to “Connect with friends and the world around you on Facebook” and remains today. The text “Sign up it’s free and…” has been consistent since 2009. Footer links started simplistically with only site navigational links. Language selectors make their appearance in the footer in 2010. Deeper categorical links, no doubt for SEO make their appearance in the footer in 2012.

While visually not too many changes. The ones we note create for some interesting nuggets. First, we all know reducing a click is the way to go and it’s no surprise to see the mother of all networking websites using registration forms on the homepage as well. Second, I find their use of language to be interesting. I never took notice until now of their use of the word “Free”. They use this language as far back as 2012 and have kept it to date. Jumping a little ahead, you’ll also notice the same language is used at both GitHub and LinkedIn as well, telling me that this message is valuable and must have an obvious impact for registration conversions. Third, their deep linking in 2012 that carries on today is a clear reminder of the importance of SEO with respect to long tail searches. You can note the directories for People, Pages, and Places all residing in the footer.

GitHub

Full GitHub timeline available here.

Starting in 2008, GitHub, it’s site and user base is the closest of all the others to be directly related to Sourcerer. You’ll see when looking through the history that there has been many changes the site has gone through with respect to thier messaging. I find this to be quite interesting, given the close relationship with users (software engineers) that we share.

Their tag line has evolved over the years. It began with “Social Code Hosting”, moved to “Social Coding”, and now removed entirely. Value proposition has evolved from “Git repository hosting”, to “GitHub is for Public Open Source and Private Business Code”, to “Build software better, together”, to “Where software is built”, to “How people build software”. Supporting value propositions have been consistently shown through the years but the marketing language they use has changed. Header navigation remains relatively unchanged. Search appears in 2014. Sign up forms on the homepage appear in 2013 and remain to this day. Sign up button color changes to green in 2013. User numbers appear on the homepage in 2011. “How’s it work” section on homepage until 2011. Footer maintains simplistic with site specific links through the years (interestingly, they had a T-Shirts link for the first 2 years and then disappears. Not until 2017 do we see the Shop link where T-Shirts and other branded merchandise can be bought)

GitHub has a lot for me to ponder over given what we’re doing at Sourcerer and many things stand out to me. One, I find their changes in language and information assembly on the page to be notable points. It’s changed quite frequently and showcased many different things. From deeper specifics in “how’s it work” to broader generalizations of who they are at a high level. The progression is fascinating as every year they seem to get more specific, which tells me that perhaps getting their message across early failed to resonate enough. They also seem to experiment with their supporting value propositions over time, another indicator of them trying to find the appropriate messaging for their userbase. Two, again registration on the homepage is critical for network businesses and we see this here as well. Three, button color has moved similarly to that of Facebook. Perhaps design themes play a role here but the movement from shades of blue to green are noted. Four, maybe slightly irrelevant but only now realizing that Octocat is fairly new.

LinkedIn

Full LinkedIn timeline available here.

Founded in 2002, LinkedIn is another site that we closely watch. It’s network and value proposition holds many similarities to what we envision Sourcerer to hold. Unfortunately the waybackmachine only goes as far back as 2008 for them but notable differences through the years are still interesting to see.

Footer has been constructed elaborately since their start, containing an alphabetical peoples directory, remaining even today. Basic search (first name and last name) was in place since 2008. Signup forms on the homepage make their appearance in 2009 and remain consistent today. Signup button has evolved from green to yellow through the years. Consistently used “Join now” as their signup text. Began using “it’s free” language in 2013 and has kept it since.

Much like Facebook, the LinkedIn homepage doesn’t have much in terms of visual changes but those I do find are duely noted. First, their early use of a “People’s” directory showcases their growth intentions from the start. The fact it carries on today is also a clear indicator of the value it possess. Simiarly their early use of a people search, which again continues through today, indicates to me their focus on the network (i.e. the value is in who’s already on board, see them now). Second, seeing the registration form on the homepage makes it even more apparent on how critical this is to have. Third, again like Facebook they make use the “Free” language quite prominently, leading me to believe in us needing to a/b test this thoroughly.

In conclusion, there are a lot of nuances to take note here with many more that I may have not noticed. However, for me, the information holistically represents another data point when deciding future improvements as it pertains to our product. As always, I love feedback and would love to hear any thoughts and opinions on my approach. Perhaps their are tidbits of insights that i’m missing.

I’d also encourage others to walk through their competitors and related sites to extract learnings from. I’d love to see how you think about things.