Using posts to make static pages - A best practice or a bad idea?

[Dandelion]

I have started working with a few law firms this year. They already have websites and I am doing various marketing tasks such as copywriting, redesigns, and, of course, SEO.

In a couple of cases I was surprised to find that they had made the pages describing their various practice areas post content. I'm not sure why. But I suspect that the idea might have been to have the phrase: /practice-areas/ as a part of their URL.

I didn't really like the idea of treating pages like posts. It seems a bit like working the system. But apart from that, wouldn't pages have a higher value as "permanent" content? As posts - their publish date has more weight, right? And they'd get old? But maybe the previous developers were on to something and the category/post approach to listing practice areas is the way to go?

I am starting a new site for a new firm and I'd like to feel more confident about the right structure to choose for this kind of website before I start.

Does anybody know the right answer?

Thanks!

[donsilvernail]

Dandelion,

This would be my suggestion, Turn those posts into pages. 301 Redirect the posts into the new pages you have created. This way the link juice loss will be at a minimum.

Then put together a content marketing strategy to compliment the pages you have created.

Thanks,

Don Silvernail

[Dandelion]

Thanks for your input Don!

Do you have an SEO reason to recommend the change? Or are you like me, and just like pages to be pages and posts to be posts? I mean, I could just leave it like it is.  I am mostly trying to figure out if there are any good reasons to leave it like it is.

[MiriamEllis]

Hey Dandelion,

I honestly don't think Google is going to care whether a strong piece of content is labeled a page or a post, if you're taking care to permanently link to these core assets from the top level navigation menu of the site, and are internally linking to them wherever relevant.

What could matter is user experience. Does the formatting/design of these articles change in some way, making them look like they aren't consistent with the core pages of the website? Is the experience startling for the human user? If so, you might want to look into Donald's idea, but otherwise, it's not likely something I'd worry about too much.

[Dandelion]

Thanks Miriam!

No - the post pages are pretty seamless as far as the user is concerned. I didn't realize they were posts myself until I had admin access and started looking for the pages to edit. I have a little duplicate content to deal with re the top level page (category page) but it's not a big issue.

I think then, unless someone new posts with compelling reasons to change them, that I will leave them as they are in my existing site, and make them pages in my new sites.

[donsilvernail]

I do,

Pages are static and have detailed information posts are dynamic,  time based and run chronologically within a blog. 
If you make your main information a post it looses some value as these pages are cornerstone content that the rest of the site builds off of. It more of a user experience situation.

Thanks,

[Dandelion]

Yes - that is the gist of my concerns. But I don't know...I think "cornerstone content" is an SEO strategy term, not something that Google defines and associates with only pages. Because there are lots of bloggers who have hundreds of posts and only a few pages and who plan for certain pages or categories to be their cornerstone content.