Better to repair or replace?

When a site is tired, what is the best approach?

[Dave McClure]

I have a site with some good and some bad content (the stats confirm this). I'm considering three options. 1) repair the bad content by rewriting, keeping the old urls 2) remove the bad content and replace with completely different set of page urls, 3)take the site down completely and move the good content to a new site, maybe leaving only a redirect on the old one.

Ideas on this very welcome - thanks!

[jimbeetle]

Unless there are some glaring problems I'd keep the old site, keep the old URLs, rewrite the content -- and add some new content.

[mack]

Yea I tend to agree. Improve on your sites bad areas and if possible improve on the good areas also. You should then keep a close eye on your stats and see how well your pages are performing. There is always room for improvement.

Mack.

[cminicooperj]

I agree with the above. But if your site has a large history now and many people saw it, you may think about chaning URLs. Just mt opinion.

[Lobo]

I would agree if it is simple a content option then work with what you've got and iron it out..

If it is a design issue or content delivery then recreating within the same url structure I would say is best..

[Dave McClure]

Thanks, all. That's probably what I'll do then, just rework the existing content. While I'm doing it I might remove the links to the doubtful pages but leave the pages in place for the sake of anyone who has them bookmarked.

[mandarseo]

Keep the URLs same and do not change the content of the site heavily. I am not saying from design point of view but from search engine point of view. Still I will recommend to get second opinion from somebody more experienced than me.

With regards,
Mandar Thosar