The playbook
Website Migration SEO: Review Process
A useful website migration SEO review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: old URL, new URL, priority, launch check. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Create the old-to-new URL map before release, including high-value pages, downloads, and linked resources. Test a representative set in staging and production. After launch, investigate missing destinations and redirect errors separately from expected short-term measurement variability.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| Inventory current URLs and their search value | Is the supporting old URL current and traceable? |
| Map destinations and test redirects before launch | Does new URL support the decision being made? |
| Compare indexing traffic and errors after release | Can the next owner verify launch check? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to launching without a complete mapping of important old pages. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, restore missing destinations and repair mappings using the inventory. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected page or query record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to priority migrated URLs passing checks using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Use query and landing-page context when comparing results. A page serving a broad informational query has a different job from a page answering a purchase question. Review whether the next step remains useful to the person arriving.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixSEO run this for every client.
Start now