Link building audit

For the audit I need access to the data and history of link building activities, because this affects the completeness of the inventory and the accuracy of the interpretation of the profile. Information about earlier link building activities is required, including the sources of acquisition and lists of publications, if they exist. The priority pages that were to be supported with links are also important. In addition, I ask for the existing anchor guidelines, in order to be able to assess distributions and patterns.

If the campaign history or data on publication sources is missing, some of the activities may be limited to recommendations and priority lists. Similarly, a lack of publisher contacts can make it harder to remove or recover links in practice and narrow this area down to indications of what requires a response and in what order. That is why, when entering the project, I verify what information is available and where there are gaps that may affect the scope of work.

Segmentation and quality assessment of the link profile consist of dividing the inventory into practical categories and assessing the credibility of the sources within those segments. Segmentation is based on the collected list of links and makes it possible to organise the profile by source type and the way the links are placed. As part of this work I identify, among other things, sitewide and contextual links, and groups resulting from the kind of site the link comes from. This division makes it easier to detect patterns and assess risk later.

• source type and content type
• sitewide links and contextual links
• directories/forums
• private blog networks
• media
• partnerships
• image links

The assessment of source quality and credibility focuses on low-quality signals that may indicate unnatural activity. I verify the repetitiveness of patterns, artificial profiles, unnatural contexts and the lack of a topical connection between the source and the target page. I also analyse suspicious networks and hidden dependencies that may affect the safety of the profile. In parallel, I check the anchor distribution (brand/URL/generic/commercial) and the match between anchors and target pages for potentially unnatural patterns.

As part of the profile assessment I also analyse the dynamics, i.e. gains and losses of links and stability over time. I check lost links, spikes in growth and waves of similar publications, which may suggest formulaic activity. On this basis I identify the elements that increase the risk of the profile, including aggressive anchors, mass low-quality links and suspicious domains. Separately, I assess whether the links support the right landing pages and whether they are not accumulating on the wrong URLs, and I also benchmark against competitors at the level of patterns (source types, anchor distribution, targeting of pages) in order to detect gaps in diversification or in linking to content.

The plan of corrective and development actions turns the audit results into specific decisions: what to keep, what to recover, what to remove and what to disavow. After the risk assessment I prepare a classification of links, followed by a list of links requiring a response, together with the rationale, priority and suggested method of action. On this basis a corrective (clean-up) plan is created, which sets out the order of work and how progress is documented. If the campaign history or publisher contacts are missing, the removal and recovery activities may be limited to recommendations and priority lists.

In parallel, I prepare a link building development plan (roadmap), which describes how to build the profile safely based on agreed rules and the audit findings. The roadmap covers the selection of source types, content topics, targeting of pages, anchor diversification and the rules for acquiring and verifying publications, and the directions of development follow from, among other things, the assessment of links to key pages and the benchmark against competitors at the level of patterns. We finalise the arrangements at a working meeting, at which we approve the classification, choose the priorities (clean-up vs development) and agree responsibilities and how progress is reported. Optionally, the scope can be extended to include implementation support, covering running the corrective actions (contact for removal/recovery) and ongoing verification of new links according to agreed rules.

• Link classification: keep / recover / remove / disavow
• Corrective action plan: contact for removal, organising the disavow candidates, priorities and order of actions, documentation rules
• Link building development plan: source types, content topics, targeting of pages, anchor diversification, verification of publications