I Need 2 Copies Of Site

Switching To A New Site - Any Risk?

[austtr]

I'm just about ready to launch a total revamp of a large existing site. It's a commercial site but also serves as a reference source for quite a few educational facilities and travel organisations.

I'm planning to run both the new and the old for about 14 days so that the organisations using the reference material have an opportunity to make a smooth transition to the new material.... updating class-room notes, bookmarks, favourites etc

To me that seems quite logical... but I do not want to run foul of Googles duplicate content rules. Should I be taking any special precautions to ensure there are no problems in doing this?

[rfgdxm1]

robots.txt blocking spiders on the new site until ready.

[martinibuster]

If you are concerned about Google, then you are concerned about being found on the net.

Remember that the site will get crawled around the beginning of the month, but the new content won't start showing up until the beginning of the following month. If everything goes smoothly.

So we're looking at a full month when what Google says is your site, and what is your site, are different.

For this reason, be sure to keep the same directory and page names. Otherwise, people will be finding you through Google, clicking on the links, and receiving 404 page not found errors.

Just a thought.

[austtr]

martinibuster...

Yep... the significence of having different folder arrangements is something that I am very conscious of.

One of the reasons for the overhaul was to bring about a streamlining of the site architecture, elimination of deeply tiered folder arrangements, along with deframing, improved navigation and whole swag of linking improvements at the same time. This was my first ever site and dates back to 97, so its due.

The site folder arrangements are now quite different so I expect a LOT of 404's until the new site settles in. Will a month of 404's cause any long term damage with Google (I expect fall in rankings & PR)and do we just revert back into business as usual once Google's cached version and the actual correspond (rankings and PR re-adjust based on new site).

If it's just writing off a month of site performance, that I can live with. Long term damage is another matter.

[martinibuster]

Oooh. Don't write off a month of serps.

What I did was place a page where a missing page would be, with a link to the new page. I placed a no meta no-index,no-follow on it to keep the robots away.

That way, the accidental surfer gets to the content they need, and the old page naturally decays. Win-win situation.

Then, when the old page have decayed from the se database, you can delete the old pages.

[austtr]

Hmmm.... you obviously bit the bullet while I am trying to avoid doing so. 317 temp pages is a bit daunting but if I put my mind to it I'm sure there will be a compromise I can come with.

Those are good ideas.... thanks for sharing.