Html V magento
-
Please excuse what seem like a naive question we are In process of updating our site from old fashioned html pages to magento store. Our html page ranks well and I don't want to upset the spiders when they find something different. We are keeping all the same content images etc. Is there any reason the magento page should not do as well as the existing html. URL is staying the same. We are think of replacing a few pages at a time rather than replacing everything on one go. Is that necessary?
-
Hi Tim,
I think you should do the migration all at once.
Make sure you 301 every page or at least the most important ones.
This video might help you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lVPrYoBkA
Magento is great platform, but if not well implement it became very slow. If you 301 your old pages for a much slower page or a page with very different content you might have problems. As long you make sure you content is aligned and your mageto site is fast you'll be fine.
-
Hi Tim,
When you move over google will pick up that you are using a new CMS for your website because the coding and structure will all be different. Aslong as you are going to have the same SEO and structure (url's) done google should recognize it, but to guarantee that you will still have the same ranking after google crawled on your "new site" is not possible.
So I would recommend you stay up too date with your SEO optimisation, and keep a keen eye on on ranking as you switch over.
You should rather replace the whole site at once so that you will have a quality site, and when it comes to optimising its all done on the same CMS which will make your life a lot easier and less confusing.
Hope this help and feel free to ask if something didn't make sense or if you would like to know more.
Regards,
-
Hey Tim,
I agree with your strategy.
There should be little reason why the same content would change in ranking. If the text, the internal linking, the # of pages are the same, the url's... the spiders shouldn't be bothered much.
I also think changing a few pages at a time is the strategic thing to do.
--Andrew
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
-
Magento Robots & overly dynamic URL-s
How can i block all URL-s on a Magento store that have 2 or more dynamic parameters in it, since all the parameters have attribute name in it and not some uniform ID Would something like: Disallow: /?&* work? Since the only thing that is constant throughout all the custom parameters is that they are separated with "&" Thanks 🙂
Technical SEO | | tilenkrivec0 -
Using video transcripts v captions and avoiding duplicate content?
Part 1: After editing a You Tube transcript, I typically re-upload as a caption file (with time codes)...for SEO does it matter whether you upload as a transcript v. captions? Is one better than the other? Part 2: If you upload a transcript (or caption) to YouTube, then post that video/transcript in your blog, wouldn't you get pinged for duplicate content?
Technical SEO | | vernonmack0 -
Benefits to having an HTML sitemap?
We are currently migrating our site to a new CMS and in part of this migration I'm getting push-back from my development team regarding the HTML sitemap. We have a very large news site with 10s of thousands of pages. We currently have an HTML sitemap that greatly helps with distributing PR to article pages, but is not geared towards the user. The dev team doesn't see the benefit to recreating the HTML sitemap despite my assurance that we don't want to lose all these internal links since removing 1000s of links could have a negative impact on our Domain Authority. Should I give in and concede the HTML sitemap since we have an XML one? Or am I right that we don't want to get rid of it?
Technical SEO | | BostonWright0 -
Www v.s non www
The canonical URLs (and all our link building efforts) is on the www version of the site. However, the site is having a massive technical problem and need to redirect some links (some of which are very important) from the www to the non www version of the site (for these pages the canonical link is still the www version). How big of a SEO problem is this? Can you please explain the exact SEO dangers? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | theLotter0 -
Is this 302 re-direct on Magento a problem?
The SEOmoz crawler has pointed out this warning on my Magento store.. http://mydomain.co.uk redirects to http://www.mydomain.co.uk Is this a problem? My site is new, so don't want to get penalised this early on! Any advice appreciated.
Technical SEO | | MoA0 -
Restaurant menu SEO: PDF or HTML?
Is it better to use a PDF or hard code restaurant menus (or any document for that matter) in HTML? I want the content to be indexed and thought PDF was the way to go for several reasons, but I wanted to get confirmation on this before I move forward.
Technical SEO | | BostonWright0 -
Google News not indexing .index.html pages
Hi all, we've been asked by a blog to help them better indexing and ranking on Google News (with the site being already included in Google News with poor results) The blog had a chronicle URL duplication problem with each post existing with 3 different URLs: #1) www.domain.com/post.html (currently in noindex for editorial choices as showing all the comments) #2) www.domain.com/post/index.html (currently indexed showing only top comments) #3) www.domain.com/post/ (very same as #2) We've chosen URL #2 (/index.html) as canonical URL, and included a rel=canonical tag on URL #3 (/) linking to URL #2.
Technical SEO | | H-FARM
Also we've submitted yesterday a Google News sitemap including consistently the list of URLs #2 from the last 48h . The sitemap has been properly "digested" by Google and shows that all URLs have been sent and indexed. However if we use the site:domain.com command on Google News we see something completely different: Google News has indexed actually only some news and more specifically only the URLs #3 type (ending with the trailing slash instead of /index.html). Why ? What's wrong ? a) Does Google News bot have problems indexing URLs ending with .index.html ? While figuring out what's wrong we've found out that http://news.google.it/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=inurl%3Aindex.html gives no results...it seems that Google News index overall does not include any URLs ending with /index.html b) Does Google News bot recognise rel=canonical tag ? c) Is it just a matter of time and then Google News will pick up the right URLs (/index.html) and/or shall we communicate Google News team any changes ? d) Any suggestions ? OR Shall we do the other way around. meaning make URL #3 the canonical one ? While Google News is showing these problems, Google Web search has actually well received the changes, so we don't know what to do. Thanks for your help, Matteo0 -
Converse.com - flash and html version of site... bad idea?
I have a questions regarding Converse.com. I realize this ecommerce site is needs a lot of seo help. There’s plenty of obvious low hanging seo fruit. On a high level, I see a very large SEO issue with the site architecture. The site is a full page flash experience that uses a # in the URL. The search engines pretty much see every flash page as the home page. To help with issue a HTML version of the site was created. Google crawls the Home Page - Converse.com http://www.converse.com Marimekko category page (flash version) http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko Marimekko category page (html version, need to have flash disabled) http://www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko Here is the example of the issue. This site has a great post featuring Helen Marimekko shoes http://www.coolmompicks.com/2011/03/finnish_foot_prints.php The post links to the flash Marimekko catagory page (http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko) as I would expect (ninety something percent of visitors to converse.com have the required flash plug in). So the flash page is getting the link back juice. But the flash page is invisible to google. When I search for “converse marimekko” in google, the marimekko landing page is not in the top 500 results. So I then searched for “converse.com marimekko” and see the HTML version of the landing page listed as the 4<sup>th</sup> organic result. The result has the html version of the page. When I click the link I get redirected to the flash Marimekko category page but if I do not have flash I go to the html category page. ----- Marimekko - Converse All Star Marimekko Price: $85, Jack Purcell Helen Marimekko Price: $75 ... www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko - Cached So my issues are… Is converse skating on thin SEO ice by having a HTML and flash version of their site/product pages? Do you think it’s a huge drag on seo rankings to have a large % of back links linking to flash pages when google is crawling the html pages? Any recommendations on to what to do about this? Thanks, SEOsurfer
Technical SEO | | seosurfer-2883190