A redesign can change URLs, page content, rendering, internal links and measurement at once. I start by recording when the change happened and which search assets moved. A fall around launch is a reason to investigate, rather than a complete diagnosis.
Check whether the fall is in search or in measurement
Compare Search Console impressions and clicks with analytics visits and accepted enquiry records. Did the analytics tag stop firing? Did consent behaviour change? Did the form or its delivery route break? Those can create a reporting loss without the same loss in search visibility.
Keep property aggregates and page aggregates separate. Their totals can differ. Query reports also omit some coverage; the missing part remains unknown.
Compare the affected pages with the launch changes
- List valuable old URLs and their intended new destinations.
- Inspect redirects, status codes and internal links.
- Check canonicals, robots directives and sitemap destinations.
- Compare initial HTML and rendered content for important templates.
- Review indexing observations and search movement by page and query type.
A browser rendering the page does not tell you whether a crawler receives the same useful content. A redirect that works once does not establish that every valuable URL has a relevant destination. Test the actual templates and mappings.
Keep the chronology visible
In E-GMP’s investigation, recorded impressions fell from 60,489 in September 2025 to 7,687 in June 2026. Strata investigated a migration and indexing path and shipped five pilot pages on 13 July.
The approximately 87% decline is the problem diagnosed. Earlier click movement happened before the July implementation and is not claimed as Strata’s recovery. Subsequent indexing observations support delivery, but do not establish qualified employer enquiries or revenue.
For your site, mark the launch, investigation and each material correction against the dates of the measurements. Keep observations before the intervention separate from those after it.
Prioritize confirmed faults
An important URL returning a 404, a blocked commercial template or a canonical pointing elsewhere is actionable evidence. A general traffic decline can also involve content changes, seasonal demand, competition or a different visitor mix. The correction should follow the evidence.
Agree who changes code, redirects, content and hosting configuration. Keep a rollback path and validate the affected routes after release. A rebuild is not an automatic response to a post-redesign decline.
Monitor recovery without promising it
Search engines need to recrawl changes. Read eligibility, impressions, relevant visits and commercial outcomes separately over time. Document remaining uncertainty and check that the new pages still serve the buyers you want.
Before a launch, the same work becomes a baseline, mapping and release checklist. Strata’s migration scope covers those responsibilities and post-launch diagnosis. For a wider rendering or indexation problem, see technical SEO.
Google’s site-move guidance explains URL mapping, redirects and monitoring when URLs change.
A dated migration evidence table
Scroll sideways to read every column.
| Before launch | After launch | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Valuable URL and buyer job | Destination, status and redirect chain | Restore or intentionally consolidate the buyer destination |
| Initial/rendered buyer information | Missing text, links or failed resources | Investigate the implementation change |
| Canonical and index state | Declared versus selected canonical and inspection date | Align signals when the conflict is unintended |
| Accepted business enquiries | Comparable period and enquiry mix | Separate search movement from commercial quality |
Print the comparison or fill the CSV for priority commercial URLs. Use the indexing guide for page-specific states, and agree a migration scope with implementation owners and monitoring dates.