Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi everyone,

I'm implementing some fairly significant changes on a clients website and wanted to know if it was better to implement all the changes at once or if I should implement the changes gradually.

The changes are:

1. Amended information architecture

2. Completely new URL's

3. New meta data and some new on page content

4. Meta robots 'no index, follow' approximately 90% of the site

Can I make all these changes in one go (that would be my preference), or should I gradually implement? What are the risks?

Many thanks

James

Hi Ryan,

That's very clear and you've stated exactly what i'm planning to do, which is always good to hear:)

I know that I need to map keywords intelligently and use on page content and meta data to reinforce those keyword choices, however the crux of my issue (keyword cannibalisation) is that I have tens or hundreds of pages with similar content and phraseology.

Normally, I would use internal linking to indicate to the bots what page I want to rank for what phrase.

But if (for whatever reason) I cant use exact match internal links, do non-exact match internal links have the same effect?

I suppose to attempt to answer my question, (and to avoid going round in circles!), because I cant fix the problem as usual through exact match internal linking, I need to look at the issue holistically and rather than say the internal linking structure will fix the problem for me, I also need to be very careful with every aspect of on page (meta tags, alt tags, image filenames, on page content).

It's not the silver bullet that I was hoping for, but do you think that is the best solution?

thanks for all your help

j

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately it's not 100% clear to me still though.

I think the problem stems from the fact that I don't have a simple 'vanilla' product, I have a complex product that needs to be described properly in the internal linking to be clear to users

So in response to your response!

I do appreciate the good point you make in the second paragraph about relevance, however following my example:

My page is highly relevant for the query 'Los Angeles Tour' as the product spends 5 days in LA and one day in SF.

Therefore my page should quite rightly rank for 'los angeles tour'...however it is not just a 'Los Angeles tour' it also takes in SF, and I need to specify that in the internal link to be clear to users.

So, if  I cant use the exact match phrase "Los Angelese Tour" my intention is to use the phrase "San Francisco & Los Angeles Tour" in the internal linking and that by having the phrase "los angeles tour" within the internal link (as long as I dont use that phrase in internal links anywhere else on the site), I will indicate to Google that that is the page I want to rank for the phrase "los angeles tour", thus preventing keyword cannibalisation

Does that work as a way of preventing keyword cannibalisation, and if not, how do I avoid the keyword cannibalisation problem without exact match internal linking?

thanks v much for your help

j

Hi guys,

I have an ecommerce client I'm working with (they are a tour operator).

The client has multiple variations of very very similar tours which has created a keyword cannibalisation issue.

I've read this blog from Rand on the issue, and I understand that I need to use internal links to show the bots which page I want to rank for which term.

Problem is, I cant use exact match anchor text as it wouldn't adequately describe the tour from a user's perspective.

eg I want a single page to rank for 'Los Angeles Tour' however, because the tour also takes in san francisco, I cant use the exact match anchor text 'Los Angeles Tour' because it doesn't give users a realistic indication of the page that they are going to.

My solution...

Is to use the internal linking structure eg 'San Francisco & Los Angeles Tour', This has the keyword phrase I want to optimise for within the anchor text.

Does this have the same effect as using the exact match anchor text?

I cant really see any other solution, so I'm guessing that s the right course of action

Your thoughts would be much appreciated

Hi Ryan,

Thanks. I've confused the issue slightly. All these changes have been made on the same domain. It's only the URL structure that is changing. (sorry the examples I've used say something very different to that).

Your logic of finding mapping methods of redirecting is a solid plan though. I will work with the developer to implement it. And for anything I cant find logic for I will either 301 redirect or rel=canonical it.

Thanks again. That's hugely helpful.

Hi Ryan,

Thanks very much for responding in such detail, that's awesome.

Yeah, I think I'm abusing the 404 page a little. The vast majority of the thousand pages on the site will still exist but will be on different URL's (duplicate content ALERT!)

That as you rightly say could cause a problem for people landing on the site, and for duplicate content.

SO...

I don't want to do the thousands of individual redirects due to server load and potential penalties

Solution could therefore be to implement the rel=canonical tag on the intermediary site URL's pointing to the new site URL's, so although the pages aren't de-indexed, the new site URL's will soon be in a dominant position over the intermediary URL's in the serp's.

What do you reckon?

Hi guys, thank you both for your responses.

I don't think I framed my question correctly though. The 301 redirect issues I am worried about are:

A. server speed- too many 301 redirects is going to put an unnecessary load on the server and reduce speed =BAD

B. being penalised- too many 301 redirects can be viewed as aggressive PR sculpting and your 301's can be devalued )(see here) =BAD

C. Avoiding 301 redirect chains- Matt Cutt's interview with Rand in 2010 said 301 chains are not a good thing as a general rule (no need to watch video, it's in the text below) = BAD

SO....

Ryan K, I agree with you in your decision to direct from old site direct to new site. However, 404's are not necessarily a bad thing (see google's stance)

Ryan P, I agree with your suggestion of a sitemap

** So my plan as far as I see it is this:**

1. 301 redirect all the original site (www.oldsite.com) pages to the new URL's at (www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com)

2. Any pages on the intermediary site (www.newsitewithdodgyurls.com) that have gained backlinks 301 them to the new site aswell

3. Let pages on the intermediary site with no SEO value 404

4. Create a prioritised sitemap (as per Ryan P's suggestion)

This solves the problem on chaining 301 redirects, it reduces the load on the server, and it avoids penalisation due to too many 301's

That's how I see it going down anyway. Would love to hear if you think that's the right plan of action.

Anyone else feel free to chip in aswell!!

Hi everyone,

I have a client that re-launched his site and it's gone from 100 pages to 1000 (new languages/increased product pages etc)

We've used 301's to map the old site to the new database driven site. BUT the new site is creating extremely long URL's:

e.g. www.example.com/example_example_example/example_example_example_example

Obviously I want to change these URL's:

THE PROBLEM.....

I am worried about the Chain Redirects. I know two 301 redirects is okay (although it's not great), but I wonder if there is an alternative:

When I've implemented the new URL structure the chain will look like this:

www.oldsite.com 301 redirects to www.newsitewithdodgyurls.com which then 301 redirects to www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com

Seeing as the new site has only been live for a month, and hasn't really gained many external links, should I:

301 from the original site (www.oldsite.com) straight to the new site (www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com)? If so, what would I do with the pages that I have not redirected? Let them 404?

OR

Leave the 301 chain in place?

Your advice, and any other suggestions would be much appreciated

Thanks