Five redirect-map problems to catch before a website migration

Guest walkthrough from Migration Redirect Review. This is a synthetic example of a redirect-map review, not a past client result or a deployed migration. The walkthrough was developed with AI assistance and checked against the synthetic CSV fixtures.

A redirect spreadsheet can contain a row for every old URL and still be unsafe to implement. Coverage is one check; destinations, conflicting rules and unresolved content decisions need their own checks.

In this eight-URL example, five mappings become candidates for approval and three remain unresolved. Keeping those three visible is part of the deliverable.

1. A chain that hides a content decision

The proposed rules send /about to /team, then to the new /about-us. A direct mapping from /about to /about-us removes the intermediate hop. It does not prove that the final page covers the former content. Record both the structural change and the content owner’s approval separately.

2. Two destinations for one source

The old /contact has competing destinations: /contact-us and /support. The new inventory calls the first page Contact and the second Support. Title agreement suggests a candidate, but the reviewer still needs to compare the content. Do not silently pick whichever row happens to occur last in the file.

3. A target missing from the new inventory

The original rule for /blog/welcome points to a page absent from the supplied new inventory. There is a new /articles/welcome page with the same title. Flag that candidate for review. Absence from an inventory is not proof of an HTTP 404; that requires a request to the actual site.

4. A cycle without an approved destination

/loop-one points to /loop-two, and /loop-two points back to /loop-one. Following the rules never reaches a final page. Hold both URLs for a decision. Replacing a loop with an arbitrary homepage redirect would conceal the unresolved question rather than answer it.

5. Retired content without a successor

The old /retired page has no supplied replacement. Ask whether relevant successor content exists or whether removal is intentional. Keep that decision separate from the list of proposed redirects.

A compact review record

Use columns such as old_url, current_target, proposed_target, finding, evidence, decision_owner, and staging_result. Keep structural findings, content approval and live verification distinct. A spreadsheet match is not a successful HTTP test.

Before implementation, preserve the current configuration. On staging, request every old URL and record the response, each Location hop and the final destination. Check final content and intended indexing settings. Compare actual results with the approved map and restore the saved configuration if unexpected behavior appears. CSV is an interchange format; implementation syntax depends on the platform.

Google’s site-move documentation covers the wider migration process, including URL mapping and monitoring. This walkthrough covers one small review step and makes no ranking guarantee.

Get a sample review

Migration Redirect Review offers a free review of ten supplied redirects. Email fieldworkdesk@hey.com with subject Migration sample and ten public old-page URLs plus proposed destinations. Do not include credentials, customer records or token-bearing links. The full review costs USD 300 for up to 500 old URLs and 500 exact-match rules. Agree scope and delivery date before ordering. Production deployment is outside the service scope.