Restructuring Site: How to Minimize Problems with Google Regarding Redirects

[MWWWconquest]

I'm restructuring an old site (17k/mo organic traffic) and I'm unsure the best way to mitigate a drop in traffic after we make the switch. All of the content will remain the same (about 200 pages), but URL structures are changing for nearly every post (which were previously wp pages)

Here's the dilemma:

1. In a staging environment, we changed most of the url structures by putting them under their respective categories. For instance, example.com/old-article > example.com/main-category/old-article. I'm afraid there will be a drop in traffic between the time we switch to the new live site and the time it takes to re-index. Or worse, somehow be penalized for 404's showing in the SERPS
2. Per my developer buddy, all interlinks must be manually changed within the content and this sounds like a PITA to say the least. He also said 301's are for permanent changes and suggested 302's. I also fear some sort of SEO penalization for having broken links throughout the content but I digress

Based off this MOZ article, here's what I've come up with for a solution:

1. Set 302's to temporarily keep the organic traffic flowing AND to keep interlinks active until I get a chance to manually comb each article/google reindexes (I'd assume there will be some link juice lost, but UX and SERPS results will at least take them to the right article).
2. Submit a new sitemap as soon as we get the new site live...but this doesn't solve my interlink issue

_____________________________________________________________
Considering my concerns, are 302's the best option?

 

[Ryuzaki]

Or worse, somehow be penalized for 404's showing in the SERPS

Why would there be any 404's at all if you're using redirects?

Per my developer buddy, all interlinks must be manually changed within the content and this sounds like a PITA to say the least.

It's not a must but I highly recommend doing it. My motto is "don't waste Google's resources and they'll reward you". It's good Technical SEO, because it's good for users AND good for Google.

I'd recommend doing this now BEFORE you push the new version live. I'd get it all done on the staging server. All of it, everything that needs changing, before you introduce it to Google. You'll minimize the amount of time it'll take and confusion you'll create by letting them chew on it and understand it at once instead of in phases.

He also said 301's are for permanent changes and suggested 302's. I also fear some sort of SEO penalization for having broken links throughout the content but I digress

Why would you use 302's if this is a permanent change? If I'm understanding this right, you do want 301 redirects.

Better question is why are you doing this at all? It sounds to me like a vanity decision, one of fixing what is not broken. You're absolutely right. You run a risk here with zero upside. I'm not trying to be mean because I've done this too. Now I categorize everything as I wish but I don't use any sub-folders in the permalinks because it makes category swapping invisible to Google and keeps you from dealing with redirects.

I'm afraid there will be a drop in traffic between the time we switch to the new live site and the time it takes to re-index. Or worse, somehow be penalized for 404's showing in the SERPS

^ None of the above will apply if you use redirects, minus a possible drop in traffic but it won't be because of 404's or them not re-indexing you or listing the correct versions in the SERPs. It'll be because they start recalculating crap if there's enough of a change to "warrant" it. Sometimes this goes over without issue, and sometimes it's a disaster. Sometimes it's a temporary disaster. Sometimes it's smooth as butter. It's not quite a coin toss if you do it right, but still, there is risk. Depending on how much money this site makes, I'd ask if it's worth the risk for whatever gain you're looking for.

 

[MWWWconquest]

Why would there be any 404's at all if you're using redirects?

This was just referencing if we didn't redirect beforehand....which he was suggesting, but has next to 0 SEO knowledge. He's a php expert but THANK GOD I didn't blindly listen

Why would you use 302's if this is a permanent change? If I'm understanding this right, you do want 301 redirects.

Better question is why are you doing this at all?

My dev buddy suggested 302's because as he explained (again, w/o seo knowledge), 301's are for external reasons ie backlinks...never internal. After more research, google classifies redirects as temporary and permanent (this is permanent site structure changes). Not once have I found a mention of internal vs external reasons via google documentation anyways. So in hindsight, 301's are the better route here...but I'm going to take your advice by fixing all the interlinks first.

The site doesn't make much money as is, but has massive potential (aged, superb content, large/low comp niche, ranking 1st for tons of kw's etc)

You have a fair point but I'd like to think it's not in vane. I wholeheartedly agree that "don't redesign the f-ing website...again" from the crash course but think with the new theme, intentions to expand 10x this year, and lack of organization to begin with justifies it. The organization is mainly for future expansion of each category and to make it easier for editors down the road. Since I've been tasked with this and I have faith in the project, I'm surely biased.

Sometimes this goes over without issue, and sometimes it's a disaster. Sometimes it's a temporary disaster. Sometimes it's smooth as butter. It's not quite a coin toss if you do it right, but still, there is risk.

We may just keep the top 30 viewed pages the same structure for now so we don't get dinged but of course, that'll just be more organizing down the road.

Do you think leaving the most trafficked URL's the same structure will lessen the chances of google recalculating the entire site, or just more of a headache later?

 

[Ryuzaki]

You have a fair point but I'd like to think it's not in vane. I wholeheartedly agree that "don't redesign the f-ing website...again" from the crash course but think with the new theme, intentions to expand 10x this year, and lack of organization to begin with justifies it. The organization is mainly for future expansion of each category and to make it easier for editors down the road. Since I've been tasked with this and I have faith in the project, I'm surely biased.

I can't disagree with this. What started me moving posts around to new categories with the sub-folders in the URLs, and thus needing 301's, was vain. I flat out wanted to create a /reviews/ section for organization, and since the permalinks were tied to categories and I didn't want to use tags (though I could have just internally), it was vain. But it matched everything else that was in place.

But at the same time, I removed about 10 categories. I moved posts out of those and into others, did the 301's and let way more 404. Ended up deleting about 150 posts flat out. But killing off those 10 categories got me and the site way more focused on what was important. It reduced the scope so every remaining category was able to receive more depth. And I did this with an eye on the far future, like you're saying. Better to do it now while not a lot of money is on the line, than later when you flat out shouldn't do it.

We may just keep the top 30 viewed pages the same structure for now so we don't get dinged but of course, that'll just be more organizing down the road.

Do you think leaving the most trafficked URL's the same structure will lessen the chances of google recalculating the entire site, or just more of a headache later?

More headache later. Whatever you're going to do, do it all at once, in one shot, then leave it alone. This increases your chance of success (success meaning no negative impact). Pre-think it all out so you aren't adding things on later. Change the internal links, get all your 301's in place, etc. Have brainstorming sessions like "is there anything else we want or may want that we should also do now?"

The one thing I'd watch out for is how many MAJOR changes you make at a time. So all this URL swapping stuff counts as one major thing. A different major thing would be a complete overhaul of the HTML (not necessarily a CSS redesign of the same HTML, but changing the source code itself). If you do this, you're nearly guaranteed to have a "recalculation" occur. If your templates change, then on-page will get recalc'd, core web vitals, page speed, and so forth.

At the same time, if I was going to do multiple major things, I'd still do them all at once and get it into Google's hands so that the time frame of chaos is shorter. I think it's beneficial to do it all at once, but to minimize how much you're doing (by asking if it's a vanity thing or a money making thing).

 

[mikey3times]

Ugh, this thread has me rethinking my move from another CMS to Wordpress, which I was planning to also make changes to the site structure (things I’ve learned since starting a long time ago.)

I’m making high 4 figures per month. It isn’t a lot to lose…but it is also a lot to lose. Maybe I should stick with my dying CMS and with a less than ideal site structure.

How does one decide?

 

[MWWWconquest]

But killing off those 10 categories got me and the site way more focused on what was important.

Better to do it now while not a lot of money is on the line, than later when you flat out shouldn't do it.

Man, you had me on a rollercoaster now but it sounds like it was ultimately for the better in sorting out your end-strategy. I surely hope to never restructure another website but hey, I'm learning a lot so it's a win-win.

At the same time, if I was going to do multiple major things, I'd still do them all at once and get it into Google's hands so that the time frame of chaos is shorter.

You had me thinking maybe we can publish our new theme at first, and about 1-2 weeks later push all the structural changes but ultimately it looks like we'll have to bite the bullet and be recalc'd. It is an EAT niche so hoping it weathers the storm.
Ps, sorry about the delay. Been getting over the flu and trying to get this show on the road

I’m making high 4 figures per month. It isn’t a lot to lose…but it is also a lot to lose. Maybe I should stick with my dying CMS and with a less than ideal site structure.
How does one decide?

I'm an armature so take this with a grain of salt. There's tons of factors that go into play so it's hard give you a 1.2.3 answer but something that helped me was reading "don't rebuild your f-ing website again" in the crash course (I believe, can't find it rn). The principle is your website doesn't need to be fancy, you just need to scale and it be "presentable". So from what I've read and heard, you can make millions of dollars on a website that looks like trash or in another CMS other than wp. Just my 2c