Checklist

Run 47 Migration SEO Checks With Clear Evidence, Owners, and Pass/Fail Criteria

Use this checklist as an operating document: capture evidence, assign an owner, define what passes, log the corrective action, and retest before closing each task.

Quick answer

How should I use this migration SEO checklist during a real site move?

A complete website migration SEO checklist covers 47 verifiable tasks across pre-launch, launch-day, and post-launch phases. Each task should state the evidence required, pass/fail condition, severity, owner, corrective action, and validation step.

The highest-priority controls are a reliable baseline, a complete URL-level redirect map, production crawl and indexability checks, and post-launch comparison against the same page groups. Special cases such as hreflang, parameters, local pages, and multi-domain consolidations need additional evidence rather than generic assumptions.

Key Takeaways

  1. Use the 8-12 week pre-launch window in this checklist as a planning reference, then shorten or extend it according to URL volume, implementation scope, and approval dependencies.
  2. Lock the redirect map and target URL structure before go-live, then test representative and high-value legacy URLs against the production rules.
  3. Use the first 30 days as an early monitoring window for Search Console, crawl errors, and critical landing pages, while keeping longer-term verification separate from launch-day QA.
  4. Local, international, parameterized, and multi-domain migrations need additional evidence because the pass condition differs from a standard single-domain move.
  5. Treat every intended permanent move as a 301 mapping decision, and treat the previously published 90%+ recovery within 8-12 weeks as historical internal context requiring source reconciliation, not a guaranteed outcome.

Why a Migration Checklist Must Be Testable

A website migration changes more than design. URLs, redirects, templates, crawl directives, canonicals, internal links, analytics, sitemaps, and hosting behavior can all shift at once. A useful checklist turns those moving parts into evidence that can be reviewed before and after launch.

Use the checklist as a control log. Every item should answer five questions: what evidence proves the current state, what counts as pass or fail, how severe is failure, who owns the correction, and how will the team verify the fix after deployment.

The operating sequence in this resource uses three phases:

  • Pre-launch, 8-12 weeks before: inventory, baseline capture, mapping, staging validation, and ownership.
  • Launch day: production cutover checks, redirect verification, crawl access, measurement, and issue logging.
  • Post-launch, 4-12 weeks after: comparison against the baseline, crawl and index monitoring, and revalidation of corrected issues.

The timing is a planning reference, not a universal requirement. A smaller migration may need less lead time, while a multi-system move may need more.

Use the migration mistakes guide to understand what each failed check can look like in practice. The checklist itself should remain evidence-driven so the team does not close an item simply because someone remembers doing it.

Pre-Launch Phase: 20 Verifiable Tasks Across the 8-12 Week Planning Window

Weeks 1-2: Baseline and ownership

  1. Architecture inventory. Evidence: current crawl and URL inventory. Pass: important templates, paths, and page relationships are documented. Severity: high if large sections are missing. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: rerun the crawl and reconcile gaps. Validation: compare the inventory with Search Console and sitemap sources.
  2. Indexable URL export. Evidence: crawl plus Search Console export. Pass: the working inventory contains all known indexable page groups. Severity: high if migration scope is incomplete. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: merge missing sources. Validation: spot-check legacy URLs.
  3. Priority landing-page baseline. Evidence: ranking, traffic, conversion, and backlink records for the top 50 traffic-driving pages. Pass: the baseline is saved before staging changes. Severity: high because later diagnosis depends on it. Owner: SEO or analytics. Corrective action: capture the missing baseline. Validation: timestamp the export.
  4. Business-critical URL flagging. Evidence: page-level revenue, lead, or strategic importance. Pass: priority pages are labeled for launch testing. Severity: high if commercially important pages are unidentified. Owner: marketing or product. Corrective action: reconcile with business reporting. Validation: sign off the priority list.
  5. Crawl-control baseline. Evidence: robots.txt, XML sitemaps, canonicals, and internal-link exports. Pass: current production behavior is stored. Severity: high if the team cannot compare old and new signals. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: collect the missing files. Validation: archive the current state.
  6. Third-party dependency list. Evidence: analytics, Search Console, CMS, form, support, and other domain-dependent integrations. Pass: every dependency has an owner. Severity: medium. Owner: project manager. Corrective action: assign unresolved integrations. Validation: owner acknowledgement.

Weeks 3-6: URL mapping and target structure

  1. Target URL design. Evidence: approved target structure. Pass: hostname, paths, subdomains, and parameter rules are documented. Severity: critical if target URLs remain unstable. Owner: SEO plus engineering. Corrective action: resolve architecture decisions. Validation: signed mapping specification.
  2. Redirect map. Evidence: legacy-to-target spreadsheet. Pass: every changed indexable URL has an explicit outcome. Severity: critical. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: fill mapping gaps. Validation: compare against the legacy inventory.
  3. Redirect response test. Evidence: staging or rule test. Pass: permanent moves return 301, temporary moves are intentionally 302 where appropriate, and final destinations return 200. Severity: critical. Owner: engineering. Corrective action: fix server or application rules. Validation: rerun the redirect test.
  4. CMS ID mapping. Evidence: legacy and target content identifiers where applicable. Pass: internal references resolve to intended new content. Severity: high if CMS relationships break. Owner: engineering. Corrective action: rebuild ID mappings. Validation: sample linked content.
  5. Parameter rules. Evidence: documented pagination, filtering, and tracking behavior. Pass: the target site has an intentional rule for each important parameter class. Severity: medium to high. Owner: SEO plus analytics. Corrective action: update application and tracking logic. Validation: crawl parameter examples.
  6. Internal-link baseline. Evidence: anchor and source-target export. Pass: important link paths are captured before cutover. Severity: high for deep or revenue-critical pages. Owner: SEO or content. Corrective action: rerun crawl segmentation. Validation: preserve the export.

Weeks 7-10: Technical preparation

  1. Search property setup. Evidence: verified properties for the target domain. Pass: the team can access the required Search Console and Bing Webmaster Tools properties. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: complete verification. Validation: record access.
  2. Target XML sitemap. Evidence: generated sitemap. Pass: it contains only intended canonical indexable URLs. Severity: high. Owner: engineering or SEO. Corrective action: remove invalid entries and add missing ones. Validation: crawl sitemap URLs.
  3. Analytics implementation. Evidence: Google Analytics 4 or equivalent firing on target templates. Pass: events and conversions match the agreed measurement design. Severity: high. Owner: analytics. Corrective action: fix tags and consent logic. Validation: live event test.
  4. Structured data parity. Evidence: before-and-after template samples. Pass: required markup remains accurate and consistent with visible content. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO plus engineering. Corrective action: fix template output. Validation: rerun validators.
  5. Hosting and performance readiness. Evidence: certificate, CDN, rendering, and load-test results. Pass: no migration-specific availability or rendering defect is present. Severity: high. Owner: engineering. Corrective action: resolve infrastructure issues. Validation: repeat tests.
  6. Crawl monitoring setup. Evidence: scheduled crawler configuration. Pass: old and new URL sets can be checked with the same rules. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: configure crawl sources and alerts. Validation: complete a test run.

Weeks 11-12: Final sign-off

  1. Stakeholder risk brief. Evidence: documented launch assumptions and escalation path. The source previously cited a 10-30% dip in weeks 1-4 with recovery in 8-12 weeks, but no supporting source URL exists in this JSON, so treat those figures as historical internal context rather than a forecast. Pass: stakeholders know which deviations trigger investigation. Severity: medium. Owner: project lead. Corrective action: publish the brief. Validation: approval recorded.
  2. Production redirect readiness. Evidence: deployable rules and test results. Pass: required 301 redirects are configured for production, not only staging. Severity: critical. Owner: engineering. Corrective action: deploy missing rules. Validation: rerun the production-ready test set.

Launch Day: 8 Immediate Pass/Fail Checks

Launch day is a controlled verification event, not a one-time visual check. Assign one owner to the issue log and require evidence before each item is marked complete.

  1. DNS and hostname resolution. Evidence: old and new hostnames resolve as intended. Pass: users and crawlers reach the correct production endpoints. Severity: critical. Owner: engineering. Corrective action: fix DNS or hosting configuration. Validation: retest after propagation. The source used 30 minutes as an operating observation point, not a guaranteed propagation time.
  2. Legacy redirect sample. Within 2 hours of go-live, test 20-30 representative old URLs. Evidence: recorded responses and destinations. Pass: intended permanent moves return 301 to the correct final page without an unexpected 404 response. Severity: critical. Owner: SEO plus engineering. Corrective action: repair the mapping or rule. Validation: rerun the failed URLs.
  3. Sitemap submission. Evidence: target sitemap is accessible and submitted where appropriate. Pass: sitemap contains intended live canonical URLs. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: fix sitemap generation or submission. Validation: confirm fetch status.
  4. Search Console review. Evidence: URL Inspection and property access on representative pages. Pass: no obvious migration-wide access or indexability failure appears. Severity: high. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: investigate crawl or indexability blockers. Validation: re-inspect affected URLs.
  5. Server-rule deployment. Evidence: production redirect and routing configuration. Pass: deployed rules match the approved map. Severity: critical. Owner: engineering. Corrective action: correct syntax or order. Validation: rerun list-mode testing.
  6. Robots verification. Evidence: old and new robots.txt. Pass: target content intended for search is crawlable. Severity: critical. Owner: SEO plus engineering. Corrective action: remove unintended blocking. Validation: fetch and test representative URLs.
  7. Issue log. Evidence: timestamped shared record. Pass: each defect has severity, owner, action, and retest status. Severity: medium. Owner: project lead. Corrective action: assign unresolved items. Validation: review the queue after each deployment.
  8. Error alerts. Evidence: monitoring for server-class 5xx responses plus redirect-chain checks. Pass: alerts can surface a test failure within 5 minutes in the source operating model. Severity: medium. Owner: engineering or SEO. Corrective action: fix alert routing. Validation: trigger a test notification.

Post-Launch Phase: 19 Verification Tasks Across the 4-12 Week Review Window

Days 1-7: Stabilization evidence

  1. Daily crawl comparison. Evidence: old and new crawl results. Pass: no unexplained growth in broken redirects, orphaned pages, or crawl blocks. Severity: critical for sitewide issues. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: isolate and fix the affected template or rule. Validation: next crawl confirms resolution.
  2. Priority-page visibility check. Evidence: Search Console data for the top 50 traffic pages. The source previously cited a 10-30% CTR change in week 1 and a 50% alert threshold; without a supporting source URL, use those only as historical internal examples. Pass: changes are explainable and no critical page group shows a technical failure. Severity: high. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: inspect redirects, indexability, and content parity. Validation: compare after the fix.
  3. Crawl-error review. Evidence: Search Console and crawler reports for 4xx, 5xx, and robots issues. Pass: critical errors are triaged and retested within 24 hours under the source operating cadence. Severity: critical. Owner: engineering. Corrective action: repair the relevant response or directive. Validation: retest production.
  4. Internal-link cleanup. Evidence: internal links that still pass through 301 redirects. Pass: important internal links point directly to final targets. Severity: high. Owner: content or engineering. Corrective action: update templates and body links. Validation: recrawl.
  5. Property segmentation. Evidence: any required property or reporting split for legacy paths. Pass: the monitoring setup can isolate meaningful migration segments. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: create the missing reporting view. Validation: confirm data collection.

Weeks 2-4: Indexing and redirect verification

  1. Priority URL inspection. Evidence: URL Inspection results for the top 100 pages. Pass: important pages are crawlable and indexability signals match intent. Severity: high. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: resolve blocking signals. Validation: re-inspect.
  2. Index coverage comparison. Evidence: new-site coverage against the old baseline. The source cited 90%+ within 2 weeks, but no supporting source URL is present, so treat that as historical internal context rather than a guaranteed target. Pass: coverage changes are understood and material gaps have owners. Severity: high. Corrective action: diagnose excluded groups. Validation: monitor after fixes.
  3. Internal discovery support. Evidence: direct internal links from strong navigational or contextual pages to important targets. Pass: priority pages are discoverable without unnecessary hops. Severity: medium. Owner: content or SEO. Corrective action: add relevant internal links. Validation: recrawl.
  4. Redirect-chain removal. Evidence: chain report. Pass: old URLs resolve directly to intended final URLs. Severity: high. Owner: engineering. Corrective action: flatten chains. Validation: rerun chain tests.
  5. Missing-redirect review. Evidence: 404 log and legacy inventory. Pass: every important 404 has an intentional outcome, and any valid replacement uses a 301 redirect. Severity: critical. Owner: SEO plus engineering. Corrective action: map and deploy. Validation: recrawl legacy URLs.

Weeks 5-12: Ranking recovery monitoring

  1. Search visibility tracking. Evidence: weekly comparison for the top 50 ranking keywords or equivalent landing-page set. The source described a J-curve with weeks 1-2, weeks 3-4, and 90%+ by weeks 8-12; treat that as historical internal context requiring source reconciliation. Pass: deviations are investigated rather than assumed normal. Severity: high when concentrated on important pages. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: diagnose the affected URLs. Validation: compare after fixes.
  2. Lagging-page audit. Evidence: pages with material visibility loss. Pass: each has redirect, internal-link, canonical, and content-parity checks completed. Severity: high. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: fix the identified cause. Validation: document subsequent crawl and visibility data.
  3. Crawl cadence reduction. Evidence: error trend from weeks 2-4. The source shifts to weekly by week 5 if no new errors appear. Pass: cadence matches remaining risk. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: increase frequency when new defects emerge. Validation: review alert history.
  4. Legacy-property handling. Evidence: Search Console configuration and any applicable Change of Address workflow. Pass: legacy properties remain available long enough to support migration monitoring. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO. Corrective action: restore access or complete the applicable process. Validation: verify reporting continuity.
  5. Old-reference cleanup. Evidence: sitemap, robots, structured data, and template scans. Pass: no unintended production references point to deprecated URLs. Severity: high. Owner: SEO plus engineering. Corrective action: update generated output. Validation: recrawl.
  6. Stakeholder reporting. Evidence: week-by-week baseline comparison. Pass: reporting distinguishes observed performance, unresolved issues, and closed fixes. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO lead. Corrective action: reconcile data gaps. Validation: stakeholder review.
  7. Paid destination update. Evidence: paid campaigns and destination URLs. Pass: active ads do not send traffic to deprecated destinations. Severity: medium. Owner: paid media. Corrective action: update links. Validation: click-test live ads.
  8. Documentation update. Evidence: wiki, runbooks, dashboards, and internal references. Pass: operational documentation points to current URLs and domains. Severity: low to medium. Owner: project lead. Corrective action: update stale references. Validation: spot-check documentation.

Special Cases: Add Evidence for Local, International, and Multi-Domain Moves

The 47-step checklist above assumes a standard single-domain migration. Special cases need extra pass/fail evidence rather than a separate set of vague reminders.

Local SEO migrations. Add four checks: (1) each genuine location or service-area page keeps or maps to a useful location-specific destination; (2) controlled Google Business Profile URLs point to live destinations; (3) name, address, and phone details stay accurate where the business actually operates; and (4) monitor local visibility for 30 days as an operating window rather than a guaranteed recovery deadline. The post-migration review should confirm that location pages remain useful and are not created solely because a market name exists.

International migrations. Add four checks: (1) language and region paths remain intentional, such as /en/, /fr/, and /de/; (2) hreflang references point to the new live URLs; (3) reciprocal references are valid where required; and (4) reporting can be segmented by language or region. Pass only when the target templates produce consistent live references.

Multi-domain consolidations. Treat each legacy domain as its own mapping and evidence stream. The source stated that consolidations can take 2-3x longer because crawl budget is spread across redirect chains. No supporting source URL is present for that timing claim, so preserve it only as historical internal context. The practical pass condition is that each legacy domain has a complete map, a verified destination set, and a monitoring owner.

Use the Full 47-Step Checklist as a Shared Project Record

The 47 tasks are most useful when each one lives in a working tracker with evidence, owner, severity, status, corrective action, and validation fields. A spreadsheet, project board, or ticketing system can all work if the team uses the same pass/fail standard.

Keep the tracker synchronized across SEO, engineering, content, analytics, and project management. Each team should close only the tasks it owns after the validation step is complete.

Use the existing checklist as the source of truth for migration status.

The source mentioned examples of teams moving in 2 weeks or over 3 months while keeping the 47 core tasks. Treat those durations as examples of project variation, not as recommended timelines. The task set stays stable, while evidence requirements and sequencing should adapt to the actual migration.

Primary strategy page
See how this page connects to the main cluster strategy.
get expert help executing your migration SEO plan
SEO for Website Migration Services

Implementation playbook

This page is most useful when you apply it inside a sequence: define the target outcome, execute one focused improvement, and then validate impact using the same metrics every month.

  1. Capture the baseline in website migration: rankings, map visibility, and lead flow before making any changes.
  2. Ship one change set at a time so you can isolate what moved performance, instead of blending technical, content, and local signals in one release.
  3. Review outcomes every 30 days and roll successful updates into adjacent service pages to compound authority across the cluster.

Frequently Asked Questions

What order should I tackle these 47 steps if my migration timeline is compressed?

Protect the tasks that establish the baseline, redirect map, crawl access, indexability, measurement, and launch verification. The source used a 4 week compressed pre-launch example, prioritizing the top 30 traffic pages and keeping daily post-launch checks for at least 7 days.

Treat those periods as operating examples. If scope must be reduced, document which checks were deferred, why, who owns the risk, and when they will be completed.

Which tasks should marketing own, and which need engineering or SEO?

Marketing or content can own inventory review, content parity, internal-link decisions, and business-priority labeling. Engineering should own DNS, server rules, 301 deployment, robots and sitemap implementation, SSL/CDN behavior, and 4xx/5xx remediation.

SEO should own the baseline, redirect logic review, Search Console configuration, crawl interpretation, launch verification, and post-launch monitoring.

How much traffic loss should I expect, and how long should recovery take?

The source carried a historical internal example of a 10-30% dip in weeks 1-4, recovery toward 90%+ by weeks 8-12, slower movement for sites above 1,000 pages, a low point around weeks 3-4, and a 50% escalation threshold.

No supporting source URL is present in this JSON, so do not present those figures as guaranteed benchmarks. Use your own baseline, URL groups, crawl evidence, and business risk to define alert thresholds.

What's the difference between a 301 and 302 redirect for migration, and why does it matter?

Use a 301 when the move is intended to be permanent and a 302 when the move is genuinely temporary. A 301 communicates a permanent destination change; a 302 communicates temporary routing. Migration mappings should reflect the real intent of each URL, and the response code should be verified in production rather than assumed from configuration.

If I miss a page in my redirect map, what happens?

An unmapped legacy URL may return a 404 if no fallback rule handles it. The source used 1-2 weeks as an example removal window and a 50 URL spot-check as an operating practice, but those figures are not guaranteed search behavior.

The corrective action is to identify whether the page has a relevant replacement, deploy the right response, and then validate the old URL directly.

How do I handle pagination, filters, and URL parameters during migration?

Document parameter behavior explicitly. If the old pattern uses ?page=2 and the new pattern uses ?p=2, map or preserve the behavior intentionally, and use a 301 redirect only when the old URL has permanently moved to a new equivalent.

Validate crawlability, canonicals, internal links, and sitemap inclusion for representative parameter combinations before launch.

THIRTY SECONDS TO START

You've read enough.Your own data says more.

Connect your site and see it yourself: your rankings, your gaps, your blockers, and what AI tells your buyers. The plan and the priced options follow within 36 hours.

Your access code by SMS. We never call.No payment