Scoring Every Page: Migrate, Rewrite, or Kill

Somewhere on the site you're about to migrate is a page offering fifteen percent off a product you stopped selling three years ago, and it is still live, still crawlable, still waiting for a visitor who is never coming. Nobody put it there on purpose. It just never got deleted, the way nothing on a big site ever quite gets deleted. And here's what I keep watching teams do: they migrate it anyway, along with the duplicate tag archives and the one-off landing page from a conference that no longer exists. So before you touch a single template, score each page against four signals. Does it earn organic traffic or conversions? Does it hold inbound links or internal equity? Is the content still accurate? And is it just a worse copy of some other page you already have? Pages that score well on value and quality get migrated as-is. Value but poor quality: rewritten. Neither: killed and redirected. This happens in a spreadsheet, not a template (nobody wants to look at your spreadsheet, do it anyway). Skip it and you'll pay to haul dead weight into an expensive new platform, which is the one thing everyone swears they'll never do.

Why you score before you touch templates

Every page you migrate has a cost: it has to be mapped to a new content model, QA'd, redirected, and re-indexed. Teams that skip triage tend to lift-and-shift everything, which inflates the content model, multiplies redirect work, and buries genuinely important pages under years of expired promotions, duplicate tag archives, and one-off landing pages nobody remembers.

The scoring pass answers the only question that matters at the start: what actually deserves to exist on the new platform? Get that number down honestly and every downstream task, modeling, redirect mapping, QA, shrinks with it.

The four signals that drive the decision

Pull these for every URL. Most come from GA4 or your analytics tool, Google Search Console, a link tool (Ahrefs, Semrush, or GSC's links report), and a crawler.

Value, traffic and conversions. Organic sessions, entrances, and any goal or revenue attribution over the last 12 months. Use a full year so you don't punish seasonal pages.

Authority, inbound and internal links. External referring domains and internal links pointing in. A page with backlinks is a redirect obligation even if its traffic is low.

Freshness and accuracy. Last meaningful update, plus whether the content still reflects current products, pricing, or policy. Old but correct is fine; old and wrong is not.

Uniqueness. Is this the canonical answer for its topic, or a near-duplicate of a stronger page? Thin variants, faceted URLs, and legacy campaign clones cluster here.

The decision matrix

Cross value against quality (a blend of freshness, accuracy, and uniqueness) and the verdict falls out.

| High quality / unique | Low quality / duplicate
High value (traffic, links, or revenue) | Migrate as-is | Rewrite / consolidate. Value is real, execution is not
Low value | Migrate only if it fills a topic gap; otherwise merge | Kill and redirect

How to score each verdict in practice

Migrate

Reserve this for pages that earn their keep and don't need rework: money pages, evergreen guides with steady organic traffic, and anything with meaningful backlinks. These map cleanly to your new content model and should be your QA priority after go-live because breakage here costs the most.

Rewrite

Rewrite pages that attract demand but underdeliver: strong query impressions with weak clicks, outdated stats, or three thin posts that should be one authoritative page. A migration is the cheapest moment to consolidate, because you're already touching the URL and mapping the redirect. Fold the weaker URLs into the strongest one and point 301s accordingly.

Kill

Kill pages with no traffic, no links, no conversions, and no strategic role: expired events, retired product variants, duplicate tag and author archives, and parameter noise. Killing isn't just deleting, decide the redirect target for each. A relevant parent page beats a blanket redirect to the homepage, which Google frequently treats as a soft 404.

Edge cases the matrix doesn't cover

Zero traffic, strong backlinks. Keep the URL alive (migrate or redirect) to preserve link equity, even if the content itself gets cut.

High traffic, factually wrong. Rewrite before go-live, not after, migrating known-bad content re-publishes the error under fresh crawl attention.

Seasonal spikes. A page that's dead 10 months a year may be critical for the other two. Look at annual peaks, not trailing 30 days.

Pages that feed AI answers. If a URL is cited by AI engines or ranks for question queries, its structure and canonical status matter as much as its traffic. Killing or fragmenting it can quietly drop you out of generated answers.

Turn the scores into a plan

Add one column to your inventory migrate, rewrite, or kill, and a second for the redirect target of every non-migrate URL. That single sheet becomes the spine of the project: the migrate list sizes your content model, the rewrite list becomes an editorial backlog, and the kill list becomes your redirect map. This is the automated triage that pre-migration content intelligence produces, crawling the whole site, joining traffic, link, and duplication data, and returning a scored plan you can argue with rather than a guess.

So here's what I actually think, plainly: do this before anyone models a single field, and do it while being ruthless still costs you nothing. Wait until templates exist and the deadline is breathing on your neck, and every page you never quite decided about quietly becomes a "migrate" by default. That's how the bloat wins. Score the pages now, and that expired fifteen-percent-off page gets a verdict instead of a free ride onto the new platform. You inherit a smaller, cleaner site. Not the same drawer of things nobody remembers, moved somewhere more expensive. Do your pre-migration triage first.