Suggestions for web improvement/Google

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

A year or so ago, we had a web site which was fairly well listed in
most search engines.  6 months ago, we employed a marketing company.
They did a whole bunch for us, printed adverts, contact calling,
flyers and a redesign of the web site.

The problem is, that whilst we have seen good responses for all other
forms of advertising, the Web site traffic has dropped to the floor.

The new web site look was set-up to go alongside an Adwords promotion,
and whilst we follow up the interest that Adwords generated, we have
paused adwords.  It appears that the search engines do not like the
new more graphical web site.

So, my question for those that can spare the time for me is, should I
go back to the old non-dynamic site, stick with the modern site (and
carry on the battle of adding more pages, links etc), or try and merge
the two.

Any thoughts would be appreciated?

Old site URL =

New site URL =

Many thanks in advance.


Re: Suggestions for web improvement/Google


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Makes sense as engines can't read graphics. Thus, they need text
conetent to function and will generally favour text-heavy sites.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's too much to answer. We're busy here!


Re: Suggestions for web improvement/Google


JaffaB wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The new site look rather good - it could be worse ;)

The problem is probably that the page URLs changed and no redirects were
installed (e.g. /features.html returns a 404). This means that you lost all
PR that the old pages have accumulated. And links from other sites that
pointed to specific pages now go straight to nirvana.
I don't think there's a way to get the old PR back now.
But you may have a look at your server logs. If there are many requests to
the old .html pages, you may still gain some traffic back by installing
redirects to the appropriate new URLs. Or - while you are at it - use a
more sensible URL scheme that does not break again, if you decide to change
the server-side implementation. Use e.g. /features without an
implementation specific suffix.


Benjamin Niemann
Email: pink at odahoda dot de
WWW: /

Site Timeline