From a CMS to static HTML - how to avoid problems?

[icedowl]

A couple of years ago I moved a site from a CMS back to static HTML pages and that site is still suffering the consequences of that move. I had simply wiped out the CMS version and replaced everything with HTML pages that had completely different page names. There was no hope of doing redirects since I had no idea of what page in the CMS equated to which new page. The site had originally been written using static HTML so I was at least able to revert to the original page names with a couple of exceptions. That helped with very old (8+ years) incoming links. It still suffers a major loss of traffic from Google. At least Yahoo still loves it.

Now, the time has come to pull another site out of a CMS. This site has never had its pages previously written in static HTML and I'd like to avoid the headaches as much as possible. I've written all of the new pages and am nearing being ready to put them online. Sadly, it's not a real popular site but that may also work in its favor for this move.

Does anyone have suggestions? Or should I just do it and deal with the aftermath as it happens?

[tedster]

The main problem comes from losing the established URLs in Google's index - and the ideal is not to change them. Second best is to use a 301 redirect to the new URLs, at least for the key pages (high PR, good backlinks, high ranking, lots of entry traffic, etc.)

You can let relatively less important pages go 404 and Google will spider the new URLs through the site's navigation. That often works out better with a large site, where it can take weeks and weeks for Google to check out all the 301 redirects. If you do change the URLs for pages with backlinks, notify those websites and request they give you a direct link to the mnew URL - that also helps shorten the adjustment time.

What kind of URL structure did the CMS generate? Can you live with that on the static version of the website?

[edited by: tedster at 5:25 am (utc) on June 12, 2008]

[icedowl]

The URL's that the CMS generated all end similar to this example:
www.example.com/12/34/56

Not descriptive at all. Besides that, it is likely to have duplicate page problems which is what I ran into with the first site I did this with. No, I just cannot live with this type of URL any longer.

I'd say more but I've got to run off to work now...

[icedowl]

Back from work...

The CMS version of the site has over 200 pages according to the "site:www.example.com" command. My rebuilt version only has 70 pages with everything included plus a couple of new pages. That in itself tells me that quite a number of duplicate pages were generated by the CMS.

I know the ideal of not changing the URL's, but I sure would end up with a lot of 301's. Also, there's the time involved researching them all in order to get them all right. At least this time around they are still in existence and that research could be accomplished whereas with the first site it was impossible. Lesson learned there.

I suppose there is the possibility of having both versions online at least temporarily, but that seems like it would lead to more trouble with duplication.

As I mull this over in my head, it appears I have two choices:
1. Take the time and do the research to create the 301's. Get the new pages uploaded and install the 301's immediately.
2. Forget the 301's, wipe out the CMS version, and simply throw the rebuilt version online and take my chances.

Honestly, I don't think any of the pages are what I'd consider to be of any great importance if that makes any difference. It has always been a low traffic level site although I've had it for 4 years now.

[Robert Charlton]

icedowl - Have you done any backlink checking (on Yahoo Site Explorer, but also using Google) to see how many of your deep pages have external inbound links? This is what I'd do to determine course of action.

[icedowl]

Yes, there's very little showing in Yahoo Site Explorer and none in Google. The one's in Yahoo are all to the homepage which won't be changing its URL. They came from my member profile on two other forums or from links on another of my sites. Nothing there I'd fret over losing.

It's starting to sound like there'd be no lasting harm done if I use my "choice #2" as previously stated.

As a side note, I personally think the new pages stand a better chance of drawing in some visitors as they are now much better written with unique meta descriptions. The only changes made to the content was to do a little expansion by adding a sentence or a paragraph here and there as I saw fit.

[g1smd]

Are you migrating away from Joomla perchance?

[Swanny007]

Can you post the new pages "behind the scenes" and when ready 301 each page one-by-one to the new static version? That way the CMS will continue to run until you're done conversion. That should decrease any negative effects for regular visitors and search engines.

I would not "wipe out" and "take chances", too risky IMHO. Better safe than sorry.

[edited by: Swanny007 at 1:10 am (utc) on June 12, 2008]

[icedowl]

g1smd, not Joomla but Mambo in this case. My previous disaster of about two years ago had to do with exiting Joomla. That is why I'm trying to be cautious.

Swanny, I hear you. However at this time I believe that other than the search engines I may be the only regular visitor. At least that is what my logs are telling me.

What is spurring me on to get this switch completed as soon as possible is that a couple of weeks ago another of my sites was defaced by someone or a group that was going after a certain gallery add-on for Mambo (and maybe Joomla too). I can't predict what they may go after next but I don't want to end up with the same situation. This site also uses a gallery add-on but fortunately a different one. The new pages won't be using more than a javascript gallery solution.

I had no choice but to completely wipe out the hosting account for that site and recreate it from scratch with help from my files on my pc and what was on archive.org to speed things up. That site has recovered very nicely with no detectable problems so far. It is as if it were brand new at this time and is regaining natural traffic (more than myself and a few friends).

Anyway, I am still going through the code for the newly created pages as I had to test some things out by directing the source to files on one of my hard drives. That has to be modified now in order to go online.

I likely won't make a final decision prior to Saturday.