Question

My boss wants to change our dynamic web site into static one, in order to make it more interactive between users.

However, I strongly believe big revamping may cause ranking turbulence, and we really can not afford to it. The reason is we changed the structure of our web site couple of months ago. Specifically speaking, we eliminated lot of pages and congregated the content into one page. i.e. putting images, tutorials etc. of a product into the pages under relevant products.

Then following suggestions from experts, we redirected all of eliminated url via 301 to the corresponding product page. Unfortunately we experienced over one month decline of our page ranking in Google. That why I am so anxiety of our performance in search engines.

I figured a wild solution though. But I am not sure if it is doable! So please give your idea!

I want to maintain two sites at the same time for a period, one is dynamic, and the another is static. One will be presented under http://www.&lt;><><>.com while the other is http://&lt;><><>.com. and the latter should be static.

If everything goes well, maybe one or two months later, I can pull the static site: http://&lt;><><>.com down.

Am I dreaming?

Thanks for your time for the lengthy reading and suggestion.

Answer 1

This is the wrong place to ask the question, but it’s a horrible idea.

Maintaining the old site at a similar URL will confuse users and only delay the problem rather than solve it. A demo phase (YouTube, GMail, Google Ads, etc did this with their interfaces) where users are given the choice to switch to a new interface (cookies!) can ease radical transitions, but eventually you’ll just want to make a clear cut.

If you fear bad consequences for your page rank, make sure the new site is better and redirect all indexed old links to the appropriate new sites where possible (at least for a transitional period).