A site migration takes place when a website is re-vamped from some reason. This could be a new design or adopting a new CMS.
It is sometimes more complicated than it looks depending on the size of the website.
The ‘migration myth’ is the belief that companies are automatically going to lose traffic and revenue in the site migration process.
It seems that the newspaper’s traffic has dipped as a result of the migration, with some tools showing a drop in key metrics which affect its rankings.
We have first hand experience of this issue at Econsultancy, as we migrated our domain back in 2009, with a drop in referral traffic from Google being the consequence.
So, has The Guardian handled this migration correctly, or is there more that Google should have done to help such a massive site with the change?