Updated: 7 November 2026 · SEO · Real case

A well-done website migration doesn't sink your SEO. What sinks it is changing URLs without redirecting them, and migrating without having looked at Search Console first. I know this because I migrated my own site, arubeus.com, from WordPress to a static site in October 2026, with 379 old URLs that all had to keep leading somewhere. This article covers what I did, what I measured and what I can't promise yet. There is no "I recovered X% of traffic" figure: I report what is documented and flag what is still open.

For context: I'm Adrián Rubio and I sell web design and SEO, so I have an interest in you hiring me. That's why I include the cases where migrating isn't worth it.

The case: where arubeus.com started

Before touching anything, I looked at Search Console. The site, still on WordPress, had been losing impressions since the end of May 2026. The drop coincided with a Google core update and so had nothing to do with the new site, which didn't exist yet. That's the first mistake you avoid by looking at the data first: blaming the migration for a drop that was already there.

What I saw in Search Console at the end of September:

  • Over the previous 3 months: 7 clicks and 3,780 impressions, with an average position of 20.4.
  • Almost all queries were about Alcorcón: "diseño web alcorcon" (web design Alcorcón) at position 18.7 and "agencia seo alcorcon" (SEO agency Alcorcón) at 12.8.
  • 70 indexed pages and 131 not indexed, many of them old WordPress URLs (categories, double slashes) and posts that Google had crawled but didn't consider useful.
  • Part of the signal was still assigned to the old URL of the Spanish homepage.

In other words: a small site with little authority that was already starting from a weak position. Migrating wasn't going to fix authority; it could only avoid making things worse and leave the technical base in order.

What I did, step by step

The method is the same for a 20-page site as for a 400-page one. What changes is the time it takes.

  1. URL inventory. Before building anything, I listed everything that responded on the old site: pages, posts, categories, linked images. That came to 379 URLs.
  2. Redirect map. Each old URL was assigned to its new equivalent. Where two pages competed for the same search, I merged them: the three Alcorcón posts became FAQs inside the three Alcorcón service pages, and the old URLs redirect to them.
  3. Language at the root. The site was in English at the root, but almost all clients are in Spain. I moved Spanish to the root and English to /en/. It's a big URL change, which is why it was done with the complete redirect map and not by eye.
  4. Single-hop 301 redirects. Generated by script and checked with another script: one redirect per URL, no chains.
  5. One-by-one check. Of the 379 old URLs, 367 return a 301 to a page that responds 200 and 12 are served directly because they still exist. None ends in a 404.
  6. English content that adds nothing. 11 English pieces about the Spanish local market were set to noindex and removed from the sitemap: there was no point in having them compete with their Spanish equivalents.
  7. Sitemap and signals to search engines. New sitemap, internal links reviewed, reciprocal canonicals and hreflang, and IndexNow to announce the new URLs.
  8. Measurement from day one. Analytics with consent and Search Console open to compare every week.

Technically, the new site is generated as static HTML at build time: there is no database or PHP on each visit. With that, Lighthouse in production scores 94 on mobile and 99 on desktop.

Common migration mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake What it causes How to avoid it
Changing slugs without redirecting Old URLs return 404 and lose their links and rankings A 301 map of all URLs before publishing
Redirect chains (A → B → C) Speed and link value are lost; Google may stop following them A single hop, checked by script
Blocking crawling with robots.txt or a staging noindex The new site goes live invisible Check robots.txt and meta tags on the day of the switch
Forgetting images and PDFs You lose image traffic and links to files Include them in the URL inventory
Losing titles, descriptions and text that ranked The new page responds worse to the same search Copy what works and improve it later, not at the same time
Wrong hreflang or canonicals when changing language Google picks the wrong version Reciprocal, verified tags
Migrating without a baseline You can't tell whether anything got worse Export Search Console before the change

What a migration doesn't change: authority

The migration put the technical base in order: speed, clean URLs, structure. What it did not change is what weighs most for ranking: other sites linking to yours. When the switch was made, roughly 25 domains linked to arubeus.com, and almost all were my own or clients'.

This matters if you're thinking of migrating in the hope of "climbing on Google". If your site's problem is that nobody links to it, or that it doesn't answer the customer's search better than the competition, a new, fast site helps but doesn't solve that. A migration is a maintenance and technical-foundation job, not a visibility strategy. For the latter, read the SEO guide for small businesses (in Spanish).

When migrating isn't worth it

  • Your WordPress site works, loads in under 2.5 seconds on mobile and you keep it up to date: migrating only adds risk.
  • You have nobody to check the redirects: a mistake in a 301 costs more than you save on hosting.
  • You're in the middle of a traffic drop and don't know the cause: diagnose in Search Console first, then decide. Changing sites while investigating a drop mixes up the causes.
  • Speed is what's failing: it can often be fixed by optimising images and removing plugins, without changing platform. More in why mobile website speed matters (in Spanish).

If you still want to rebuild it, in web design for small businesses: what to ask for and what it costs (in Spanish) I compare custom builds, templates and WordPress. For prices, see also how much a website costs in Spain in 2026.

Migration checklist: 12 points

  1. Export Search Console (queries and pages for the last 16 months) before touching anything.
  2. Build the URL inventory: pages, posts, categories, images and PDFs.
  3. Decide what stays, what gets merged and what gets removed.
  4. Prepare the 301 redirect map (old URL → new URL).
  5. Keep the slugs that already rank; change them only with a reason.
  6. Copy the titles, descriptions and text that already work.
  7. Check robots.txt, noindex and canonicals on the new environment before publishing.
  8. Test the redirects with a script: no chains and no 404s.
  9. Submit the new sitemap and remove the old one.
  10. Verify hreflang if the site has more than one language.
  11. Check analytics: that conversion events still fire.
  12. Watch Search Console every week for 8 weeks and note what changed and when.

What comes next

The migration went live on 5 October 2026. As I write this, there are only a few weeks of data, and Google's impressions take time to settle: it isn't honest to draw conclusions from so little. What I can confirm is that the URLs are served without errors, that speed is good and that the structure is ready. I'll report the SEO result when there are months of data, not before.

Frequently asked questions about SEO migration

How long does Google take to recover rankings after a migration?

It depends on the size of the site and the quality of the redirects. On well-migrated small sites, Google usually reprocesses the URLs within weeks, but rankings can take several months to settle. There is no guaranteed figure; the sensible approach is to watch Search Console weekly and change nothing else in the meantime.

Do you lose SEO when you change domain?

Some can be lost, especially if the new domain has no history. To minimise it, 301-redirect every old URL to its new equivalent, tell Google through Search Console's change of address tool and update any external links you control. Keeping the same domain, as in this case, avoids that risk.

Do all URLs need to be redirected?

All of those with impressions, inbound links or traffic, yes. Those with none of the three can return 404 or 410 at no real cost. When in doubt, redirect: it's cheaper than losing a URL that has links.

WordPress or a static site?

A static site is faster, cheaper to maintain and has no plugins to update. WordPress is more convenient if you want to edit things yourself without touching code. If WordPress already works for you, don't migrate just because it's fashionable. The full comparison is in web design for small businesses (in Spanish).

What happens to images in a migration?

If their path changes, they need to be redirected, or you should keep the same path. Otherwise you lose Google Images traffic and external links to them break. Include them in the URL inventory from the start.

In short

Migrating is safe when you start from data (Search Console), when every old URL has a single-hop redirect and when you monitor the weeks that follow. It doesn't replace earning links or answering what the customer is searching for better. If you'd like me to look at your case, check how your site is doing with the free Check your website tool, see the digital marketing in Alcorcón pages (in Spanish) or get in touch.