Redirect mapping mistakes that damage migrations | Lillian Purge

Redirect mapping mistakes that damage migrations

Website migrations are one of the highest risk activities in SEO and redirect mapping is where most of that risk sits. From experience the majority of ranking losses after a migration are not caused by Google updates or bad luck. They are caused by poor redirect decisions that quietly break relevance authority and crawl paths. Many of these mistakes are not obvious at launch which is why they are so damaging long term.

Redirect mapping is not just a technical checklist. It is an SEO exercise that requires understanding intent page purpose and how authority flows through a site. When redirects are treated as a bulk task rather than a strategic one migrations often bleed traffic slowly over weeks or months with no single clear point of failure. This article explains the most common redirect mapping mistakes that damage migrations and how they usually happen.

Treating redirects as URL matching only

One of the most common mistakes is mapping redirects purely based on URL similarity rather than page purpose. From experience this happens when teams try to automate redirects using pattern matching or spreadsheet shortcuts.

A URL that looks similar does not necessarily serve the same intent. Redirecting an old service page to a loosely related new page can confuse Google and dilute relevance even if the redirect technically works.

In my opinion redirects should always be mapped by intent first and URL second. The question should be what page now fulfils the same user need not which URL looks closest.

Redirecting everything to the homepage

This is one of the most damaging redirect mistakes and it still happens far too often. From experience this usually occurs when pages are removed without proper replacements and the homepage is used as a catch all.

Google does not treat homepage redirects as neutral. Redirecting a large number of URLs to the homepage is a strong signal of poor migration hygiene and it often results in lost rankings and deindexed pages.

In my opinion if a page does not have a relevant replacement it should not be redirected blindly. Sometimes a 410 is safer than a misleading redirect.

Using category level redirects instead of page level

Another frequent issue is redirecting detailed pages to high level category pages. From experience this often happens in ecommerce migrations where product or subcategory pages are collapsed into broader structures.

While category pages may seem like logical destinations they often do not match the specificity of the original page. Authority and relevance tied to detailed queries is lost as a result.

In my opinion page level redirects should be preserved wherever possible. Granularity matters in SEO and broad redirects flatten relevance.

Forgetting non traffic pages that still hold authority

Many teams only map redirects for pages that receive traffic. From experience this is a major oversight.

Some pages hold backlinks authority or internal importance despite low current traffic. When these pages are forgotten their authority is lost even if they were contributing to rankings indirectly.

In my opinion redirect mapping should consider backlinks internal links and historical importance not just analytics data.

Redirect chains created unintentionally

Redirect chains occur when a URL redirects to another URL that then redirects again. From experience these often happen when old redirects are not reviewed during a migration.

Chains slow down crawling reduce the strength of authority passed and increase the risk of Google abandoning the redirect path altogether.

In my opinion every migration should aim for single hop redirects from old URL directly to final destination. Anything else introduces unnecessary risk.

Relying on temporary redirects instead of permanent ones

Using 302 redirects instead of 301s is still a surprisingly common mistake. From experience this often happens when developers treat redirects as reversible decisions rather than SEO signals.

Temporary redirects do not consistently pass authority and they signal uncertainty to search engines. During migrations this uncertainty can delay or prevent proper reindexing.

In my opinion migrations should almost always use permanent redirects unless there is a genuine short term change.

Redirecting to pages that are not indexable

Another subtle but damaging issue is redirecting old URLs to pages that are noindexed blocked by robots or canonicalised elsewhere. From experience this often slips through when staging rules are not fully reviewed.

The redirect technically works but Google cannot index the destination properly so authority is effectively lost.

In my opinion every redirect destination should be checked for indexability before launch. Redirects only work if the target page can rank.

Canonical and redirect conflicts

Canonical tags that point somewhere different from the redirect destination create confusion. From experience this often happens when old canonicals are copied across to new templates without review.

Google may follow the canonical instead of the redirect which undermines the entire mapping strategy.

In my opinion canonicals and redirects should always reinforce the same intent. Conflicting signals weaken trust.

Ignoring internal link updates

Some teams rely on redirects to handle everything and do not update internal links. From experience this creates unnecessary crawl inefficiency and dependency on redirects.

Internal links should always point directly to the new URLs. Redirects are safety nets not substitutes for clean structure.

In my opinion migrations that update internal links alongside redirects retain rankings far more reliably.

Not testing redirects at scale

Spot checking a handful of URLs is not enough. From experience many redirect issues only appear when tested at scale across thousands of URLs.

Patterns break edge cases get missed and entire sections may redirect incorrectly.

In my opinion redirect testing should include full crawls before and after launch. Assumptions are where migrations fail.

Launching without monitoring redirect performance

Redirect work does not end at launch. From experience issues often surface days or weeks later as Google recrawls deeper URLs.

Without monitoring crawl errors index coverage and redirected URLs teams miss early warning signs.

In my opinion migrations should include a post launch monitoring window where redirects are actively reviewed and adjusted.

Over cleaning URL structures too aggressively

Some migrations attempt to fix every perceived issue at once. From experience aggressive URL changes combined with redirects increase risk dramatically.

Every URL change is a trust reset to some degree. Changing structure language and hierarchy all at once makes it harder for Google to reconcile old and new.

In my opinion phased improvements are safer. Preserve as much continuity as possible during the initial migration.

Assuming redirects fix content mismatches

Redirects cannot compensate for poor content alignment. From experience when new pages are thinner or less relevant than old ones rankings still drop even with perfect redirects.

Google evaluates the destination page quality not just the redirect itself.

In my opinion redirect mapping must be paired with content parity or improvement. Authority needs somewhere appropriate to land.

My honest view from experience

Redirect mapping mistakes damage migrations because they break trust signals quietly. Nothing crashes. Nothing errors visibly. Rankings just fade.

In my opinion the biggest mistake is treating redirects as a technical afterthought rather than a core SEO task. Redirects decide whether authority is preserved or discarded.

The safest migrations are the ones that respect intent maintain relevance and minimise unnecessary change.

Final thoughts

Redirect mapping is the backbone of a successful migration. When done well users barely notice and rankings stabilise quickly. When done poorly the damage is slow persistent and hard to reverse.

If you approach redirects with intent based mapping thorough testing and post launch monitoring migrations become far less frightening.

In my opinion most migration failures are avoidable and redirect mapping is where that prevention starts.