Audience and topical fit
We assess whether the publication, section and proposed page are relevant to the client, target market and destination page. A high domain metric cannot compensate for an unrelated audience.
Quality standards
A domain metric is a filter input, not a quality verdict
Our review considers the site, the proposed page, the destination, the commercial arrangement and the evidence available after delivery. Standards may become stricter for regulated, financial, health or high-risk topics.
Six review areas
What we inspect before recommending an opportunity
Search and traffic pattern
We review direction, concentration and plausibility rather than relying on one estimated number. Sudden spikes, dependency on a few unrelated queries and unexplained decline require further review.
Indexing and page integrity
We check whether representative pages can be discovered, whether the site maintains useful archives, and whether published pages remain accessible without deceptive redirects or replacement.
Outbound-link behaviour
We inspect recent content for excessive commercial links, unrelated destination patterns, repeated anchors, thin sponsored sections and signs of indiscriminate selling.
Editorial and content quality
Placement context should be readable, original and useful. We review authorship, factual support, topical depth, formatting and whether the link serves a defensible reader purpose.
Commercial and disclosure terms
Editorial, sponsored, paid, inserted and syndicated arrangements must not be deliberately conflated. Link attributes and disclosure requirements are recorded before acceptance.
Rejection or escalation
Signals that require a no—or more evidence
Not every signal proves abuse on its own. Several combined signals, material misrepresentation or an unresolved delivery chain are enough to reject an opportunity.
- ×Obvious PBN or templated network footprint
- ×Copied, spun or predominantly low-value content
- ×Large volumes of unrelated commercial outbound links
- ×Fabricated screenshots, traffic or ownership claims
- ×Forced exact-match anchors without editorial justification
- ×Hidden redirects, cloaking or post-delivery URL substitution
- ×Guaranteed rankings, indexation or permanent retention
- ×Refusal to disclose the actual delivery chain or material conditions
Content and anchors
The page must make sense without the transaction
We prefer links that help a reader verify a claim, explore a relevant resource or continue a clearly related task. The surrounding content should not exist solely to carry an anchor.
Anchor text is reviewed in the context of the destination page, existing profile and editorial sentence. We do not treat exact-match anchors as a default requirement.
When a publisher or jurisdiction requires a disclosure or specific link attribute, that condition should be known before delivery and recorded accurately.
Delivery evidence
What a useful record contains
- ✓Final source URL and target URL
- ✓Anchor text and surrounding context
- ✓Publication or placement date
- ✓Rel attributes and visible disclosures
- ✓Agreed page or section
- ✓Status at delivery and review notes
- ✓Commercial terms recorded internally
- ✓Exceptions, replacement conditions and follow-up date
What these standards do not guarantee
A completed review cannot guarantee rankings, traffic, indexation, AI citation, editorial acceptance or permanent page retention. Search systems, publishers and third-party sites remain outside our control. We define deliverables, record known conditions and address agreed exceptions; we do not convert uncertainty into a promise.
Can your resources meet these standards?
Submit verifiable information and make commercial conditions explicit.