Changing design for a client. SEO concerns.
-
Hi there!
A client requested me to change the look of his website entirely. It currently ranks #16 on Google with one of their main keywords.
My problem is:
The current site was made in a CMS I'm not familiar with and all of its pages urls are not SEO friendly (EX: http://www.mysite.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=95).
It is the first time I have come up with this situation so I would appreciate any tips or links to useful information. I tried searching in SEOmoz and came up with nothing. I'm sure this is a common problem though.
Since they want a static website, for starters their page extensions will change from .php to .html I'm not 100% sure but I think this will be a problem for their current ranking in Google.
Any ideas?
Edit: I forgot to mention that all of the backlinks this site has points to their hompage as www.mysite.com, I guess this is good.
-
Thanks a lot for your response Dave. I'm now confident thanks to the responses on what should I do to solve my issue.
-
Eblan, 301 redirects are the way to go.
Be aware that when doing 301 redirects you might temporarily lose rankings (if the internal pages rank), but in your case I would expect not only a quick recovery, but a rankings improvement due to a better URL format.
-
I know it doesn't sound very good but they only have 10 backlinks, and I doubt they are paid.
It seems the previous designer used a template, I am not familiar with the CMS they are using. It's not Drupal, Joomla or Wordpress (I forgot the name but has a sun in the logo).
I will follow your advice on the 301 redirects for sure and erasing the extensions using .htaccess.
Thanks a lot for your response!
-
What is the type of CMS? Sometimes small sites that are manageable and not constantly updated are easier just to handle as html pages. Drupal for instance is a nightmare for a layman to work on and overkill for a small site.
You should be able to make SEO friendly URLs in the CMS without changing the CMS though. I would look into that first.
Don't add the html extension you don't need it. All the old URLs should 301 to the new URLs. Also the CMS might be able to handle that or you can do it in .htaccess. It should cause no drop in rankings.
It's actually not really good that all of the pages are linking to the homepage, but it's OK as long as they aren't paid links. You should look at the backlink profile.
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 changing content and design of the website gonna affect my all the backlinks i have made till now
i have been working on my link profile for a month now, after learning about 5 step moz methodology i have decided that i would like to change all of the content of my site and taylor it to what my customers need, am i gonna loose all the domain authority if make changes? if it gonna affect, hows that gonna come out
Web Design | | calvinkj0 -
Have Your Thoughts Changed Regarding Canonical Tag Best Practice for Pagination? - Google Ignoring rel= Next/Prev Tagging
Hi there, We have a good-sized eCommerce client that is gearing up for a relaunch. At this point, the staging site follows the previous best practice for pagination (self-referencing canonical tags on each page; rel=next & prev tags referencing the last and next page within the category). Knowing that Google does not support rel=next/prev tags, does that change your thoughts for how to set up canonical tags within a paginated product category? We have some categories that have 500-600 products so creating and canonicalizing to a 'view all' page is not ideal for us. That leaves us with the following options (feel it is worth noting that we are leaving rel=next / prev tags in place): Leave canonical tags as-is, page 2 of the product category will have a canonical tag referencing ?page=2 URL Reference Page 1 of product category on all pages within the category series, page 2 of product category would have canonical tag referencing page 1 (/category/) - this is admittedly what I am leaning toward. Any and all thoughts are appreciated! If this were in relation to an existing website that is not experiencing indexing issues, I wouldn't worry about these. Given we are launching a new site, now is the time to make such a change. Thank you! Joe
Web Design | | Joe_Stoffel1 -
Mobile and SEO
We are in the process of building a responsive version of our site for mobile users (currently about 20% of total traffic). What are the most important SEO considerations we should be aware of when it comes to this kind of project? Thanks
Web Design | | halloranc0 -
Wordpress Designer - Have you heard of Jay Hafling?
We are currently browsing around to have a new site built for us as we are not happy with the current one. I checked out webdevstudio and it looks like they build quality sites, but they told me they aren't taking on small projects like mine currently. So browsing around I found this designer from the Ukraine with a nice site and nice portfolio. I am wondering if anyone has worked with him, and maybe to get some opinions on his work? I don't want to make the wrong choice here.. What do you guys think? http://www.jayhafling.com
Web Design | | DemiGR1 -
Will a .com and .co.uk site (with exact same content) hurt seo
hello, i am sure this question has been asked before, but while i tried to search i could not find the right answer. my question is i have a .com and .co.uk site. both sites have exact same product, exact same product descriptions, and everything is the same. the reason for 2 sites is that .com site shows all the details for US customers and in $, and .co.uk site shows all the details to UK customers and with Pound signs. the only difference in the 2 sites might be the privacy policy (different for US and UK) and different membership groups the site belongs to (US site belong to a list of US trade groups, UK belongs to a list of UK trade groups). my question is other than the minor difference above, all the content of the site is exactly the same, so will this hurt seo for either one or both the site. Our US site much more popular and indexed already in google for 4 years, while our UK site was just started 1 month ago. (also both the sites are hosted by same hosting company, with one site as main domain and the other site as domain addon (i thought i include this information also, if it makes sense to readers)) i would appreciate a reply to the question above thanks
Web Design | | kannu10 -
On site SEO opinions
Hi all, I have been testing different configurations for my on-site SEO for a while now and I think I am pretty much there. However it is always nice to know what other SEO's think about my keyword density and usage. My site is http://www.tomlondonmagic.com I am curious as to what you think regarding landing page content, whether you need lots or text or little text? I have just removed links in the text as I feel I want to keep as much juice on my landing page as possible. Thanks all!
Web Design | | TomLondon0 -
Seo and CSS media queries
Hello to all participants! I'm starting on responsive design with css media queries and I was wondering if hidding content can, in this case, can also be bad for seo? I know that hidding content is bad (eg. display: none;), but is it also like that with responsive design or does Google see it other way? If I have a news column with title, image and text for 1024px and hide the text and image leaving just the title for 768px, or smaller, will Google consider this black hat and will it be bad for seo? are there any articles I can read about this subject, and other similar subjects? sorry for my english 🙂 thanks
Web Design | | Lusodados1 -
Panda and Penquin Fall - Could HTML Design an Issue?
Hi, We were hit hard by Panda 3.4 on March 23rd 2012. Then Penguin came along and slapped us down a little farther on April 24th. White hat SEO for 13 years on the site. I have been trying to discover the reason we got hit so hard, to date 90% down. We ae wiped. I have a couple of keywords still #2 and #3 and we see up and down changes in Google webmaster tools, i.e. a keyword is supposedly up 50 points then another down 50. All other 150 keywords that we used to rank on the first page for are not even showing up. I have a person that is about to do a full link analysis but since we never went after links I just never had the feeling that is where our problem is at, but definitely going to explore it. The reason for my post is that last night I spoke with an SEO person that has some pretty good credentials (9 years experience and works currently at large online marketing company with seo with clients like Honda) and he was nice enough to just take a quick look at the site. He said he saw nothing really wrong and did not think that we were hit for any of the normal issues people are listing, i.e. duplicate content, backlinks. His first impression was that we were knocked down because the site is "hard to index". He said the site still uses tables and a lot of our Doc Statements were for HTML 4.01 from 1999. As we all know, there are 'many' experts in this industry. So I wanted a little feedback from the community. Our main site was built in Dreamweaver using tables. We do have a Wordpress blog that is very small and just now posting to add fresh content. (posts seem to rank pretty good, this is why I thought, you know he may be right) Would an older site be penalized like this for using tables? What would you do at this stage if you had a site that is not recovering? I have now reached panic mode and have to do something, just not sure of the next step. I will be happy to post the URL if anyone wants to help with advice. Thanks,
Web Design | | Force7
Force70