Complex URL Migration
-
Hi There,
I have three separate questions which are all related. Some brief back ground. My client has an adventure tourism company that takes predominantly North American customers on adventure tours to three separate destinations: New Zealand, South America and the Himalayas.
They previously had these sites on their own URL's. These URL's had the destination in the URL (eg: sitenewzealand.com). 2 of the three URL's had good age and lots of incoming links. This time last year a new web company was bought in and convinced them to pull all three sites onto a single domain and to put the sites under sub folders (eg: site.com/new-zealand). The built a brand new site for them on a Joomla platform.
Unfortunately the new sites have not performed and halved the previous call to action rates. Organic traffic was not adversely affected with this change, however it hasn't grown either.
I have been overhauling these new sites with a project team and we have managed to keep the new design but make usability/marketing changes that have the conversion rate nearly back to where it originally was and we have managed to keep the new design (and the CMS) in place.
We have recently made programmatic changes to the joomla system to push the separate destination sites back onto their original URL's. My first question is around whether technically this was a good idea.
Question 1
Does our logic below add up or is it flawed logic?
The reasons we decided to migrate the sites back onto their old URL's were:
- We have assumed that with the majority of searches containing the actual destination (eg: "New Zealand") that all other things being equal it is likely to attract a higher click through rate on the domain www.sitenewzealand.com than for www.site.com/new-zealand.
- Having the "newzealand" in the actual URL would provide a rankings boost for target keyword phrases containing "new zealand" in them.
- We also wanted to create the consumer perception that we are specialists in each of the destinations which we service rather than having a single site which positions us as a "multi-destination" global travel company.
- Two of the old sites had solid incoming links and there has been very little new links acquired for the domain used for the past 12 months.
- It was also assumed that with the sites on their own domains that the theme for each site would be completely destination specific rather than having the single site with multiple destinations on it diluting this destination theme relevance. It is assumed that this would also help us to rank better for the destination specific search phrases (which account for 95% of all target keyword phrases).
The downsides of this approach were that we were splitting out content onto three sites instead of one with a presumed associated drop in authority overall. The other major one was the actual disruption that a relatively complex domain migration could cause.
Opinions on the logic we adopted for deciding to split these domains out would be highly appreciated.
Question 2
We migrated the folder based destination specific sites back onto their old domains at the start of March. We were careful to thoroughly prepare the htaccess file to ensure we covered off all the new redirects needed and to directly redirect the old redirects to the new pages. The structure of each site and the content remained the same across the destination specific folders (eg: site.com/new-zealand/hiking became sitenewzealand.com/hiking).
To achieve this splitting out of sites and the ability to keep the single instance of Joomla we wrote custom code to dynamically rewrite the URL's. This worked as designed. Unfortunately however, Joomla had a component which was dynamically creating the google site maps and as this had not had any code changes it got all confused and started feeding up a heap of URL's which never previously existed.
This resulted in each site having 1000 - 2000 404's. It took us three weeks to work this out and to put a fix into place. This has now been done and we are down to zero 404's for each site in GWT and we have proper google site maps submitted (all done 3 days ago).
In the meantime our organic rankings and traffic began to decline after around 5 days (after the migration) and after 10 days had dropped down to around 300 daily visitors from around 700 daily visitors. It has remained at that level for the past 2 weeks with no sign of any recovery.
Now that we have fixed the 404's and have accurate site maps into google, how long do you think it will take to start to see an upwards trend again and how long it is likely to take to get to similar levels of organic traffic compared to pre-migration levels? (if at all).
Question 3
The owner of the company is understandably nervous about the overall situation. He is wishing right now that we had never made the migration. If we decided to roll back to what we previously had are we likely to cause further recovery delays and would it come back to what we previously had in a reasonably quick time frame?
A huge thanks to everyone for reading what is quite a technical and lengthy post and a big thank you in advance for any answers.
Kind Regards
Conrad -
Hi Conrad,
What a tricky situation. Ultimately, these kinds of issues are hard to call perfectly because it's never pure search considerations in play and, especially with each business being different, it's impossible to be certain how search engines will treat you.
With those caveats in mind, here are my thoughts:
Question 1
Your thinking is solid. Whether it is the right call or not is impossible to know (even in hindsight) because there are simply too many moving parts. Nonetheless, I think you have sensibly weighed up the pros and cons and made the decision with open eyes. Just for completeness, I believe that point #2 is only a small benefit if at all (and probably declining) but the only part I'd really challenge you on is #3. I would personally only go down this route if the company truly is a specialist in each destination. If that is true, then great (and they likely have specialist country managers who can push forward the marketing of each site). If it's not really true and you're more just "seeking the perception" that it's true, then I might stick with the benefits of an integrated site.
Question 2
Errant 404s are a nasty and annoying problem precisely because errors do not necessarily undo quickly. I would be prepared to wait 6-8 weeks to see a recovery. You need to bear in mind, of course, that the drop could be associated with the downsides you identified in #1 (lower aggregate domain authority etc) and so you may not see a recovery from the 404s specifically. If you haven't seen a recovery after 8-10 weeks, I'd believe this was the "new normal" and would be looking at growth from there rather than "recovery".
Question 3
It's impossible to be sure. The number of "reversed migrations" that any of us have seen is tiny and they're all different so I'm afraid that your guess is as good as mine. If it turns out that improvement isn't on the horizon, then I might be tempted but I think that my approach would be to stick with the decision if you think it's the right one - see my comments in answer to q1 above. I'd change (back) only if you think benefits you expected haven't come to pass (e.g. Has conversion rate increased on dedicated sites versus how it was on an integrated one?) and the balance of benefit has shifted.
I hope that helps.
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
-
If we migrate the URLs from HTTP to HTTPS, Do I need to request again an inclusion in Google News?
Hi, If we migrate the URLs from HTTP to HTTPS, Do I need to request again an inclusion in Google News? Thanks Roy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kadut1 -
Client wants to remove mobile URLs from their sitemap to avoid indexing issues. However this will require SEVERAL billing hours. Is having both mobile/desktop URLs in a sitemap really that detrimental to search indexing?
We had an enterprise client ask to remove mobile URLs from their sitemaps. For their website both desktop & mobile URLs are combined into one sitemap. Their website has a mobile template (not a responsive website) and is configured properly via Google's "separate URL" guidelines. Our client is referencing a statement made from John Mueller that having both mobile & desktop sitemaps can be problematic for indexing. Here is the article https://www.seroundtable.com/google-mobile-sitemaps-20137.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB
We would be happy to remove the mobile URLs from their sitemap. However this will unfortunately take several billing hours for our development team to implement and QA. This will end up costing our client a great deal of money when the task is completed. Is it worth it to remove the mobile URLs from their main website to be in adherence to John Mueller's advice? We don't believe these extra mobile URLs are harming their search indexing. However we can't find any sources to explain otherwise. Any advice would be appreciated. Thx.0 -
Will disallowing URL's in the robots.txt file stop those URL's being indexed by Google
I found a lot of duplicate title tags showing in Google Webmaster Tools. When I visited the URL's that these duplicates belonged to, I found that they were just images from a gallery that we didn't particularly want Google to index. There is no benefit to the end user in these image pages being indexed in Google. Our developer has told us that these urls are created by a module and are not "real" pages in the CMS. They would like to add the following to our robots.txt file Disallow: /catalog/product/gallery/ QUESTION: If the these pages are already indexed by Google, will this adjustment to the robots.txt file help to remove the pages from the index? We don't want these pages to be found.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andyheath0 -
Sitemap Migration - Google Guidelines
Hi all. I saw in support.google.com the following text: Create and save the Sitemap and lists of links A Sitemap file containing the new URL mapping A Sitemap file containing the old URLs to map A list of sites with link to your current content I would like to better understand about a "A list of sites with bond link to current content" Question 1: have I need tree sitemaps simultaneously ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mobic
Question 2: If yes, should I put this sitemap on the Search Console of the new website?
Question 3: or just Google gave a about context how do we make the migration? And I'll need really have sitemaps about the new site only..? What about is Google talking? Thanks for any advice.0 -
Worth it to redirect .swf during a website migration?
Recently one of our clients switched web providers. We've been implementing 301 redirects to the new URL structure for the most important pages. We noticed upon doing a site search, Google has indexed a .swf URL on page 3 of search results. Please see attached image. 1. Should I implement a redirect for this? There are no links to this filetype.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EEE3
2. There are three others (.swf) that are indexed I would think the best thing to do is to have the new website return a 404 for this page, as it's currently doing, and it will eventually drop out of the index. Any other suggestions? Thanks! g2tur4r0 -
URL Structure
URL i have to use targeted keyword on all sub page domain or not for example now i am using url like this format fundingtype.html litigation-funding.html legal-funding.html financingservices.html process.html and if i re-write all url with targated keyword like this format lawsuit-loans-fundingtype.html lawsuit-loans-litigation-funding.html lawsuit-loans-legal-funding.html lawsuit-loans-financingservices.html lawsuit-loans-process.html so which type URL are more effective for best SEO ??
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JulieWhite0 -
How Long Before a URL is 'Too Long'
Hello Mozzers, Two of the sites I manage are currently in the process of merging into one site and as a result, many of the URLs are changing. Nevertheless (and I've shared this with my team), I was under the impression that after a certain point, Google starts to discount the validity of URLs that are too long. With that, if I were to have a URL that was structured as follows, would that be considered 'too long' if I'm trying to get the content indexed highly within Google? Here's an example: yourdomain.com/content/content-directory/article and in some cases, it can go as deep as: yourdomain.com/content/content-directory/organization/article. Albeit there is no current way for me to shorten these URLs is there anything I can do to make sure the content residing on a similar path is still eligible to rank highly on Google? How would I go about achieving this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NiallSmith0 -
URL stucture like Zappos?
Hi, My site structure looks like this. domainname.com/nl/holidayhouses/villa-costa
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | remcozwaan
domainname.com/nl/apartments/apartment-caifem ect. I just went to zappos to research the site and het notice me that zappos.com has no directories. If i implement this my structure looks like this. domainname.com/nl/holidayhouse-villa-costa
domainname.com/nl/apartments-apartment-caifem Is this a better approach? Ciao, Remco0