Understand the link portfolio before changing it.

Bring the available information together

The review combines available exports, linked pages and your publication history. Known sponsorships, affiliate arrangements and purchased publications help explain the commitments behind some links.

No single tool necessarily finds every link. The sources and coverage limits are identified in the work.

Read beyond the metric

We look at the linking page, the relationship to the destination and the nature of the publisher. Anchor text is considered in context rather than measured against a universal percentage.

A mention may disappear when an editor changes a template even though the article remains. A useful record shows what changed and supports a precise enquiry, instead of turning it immediately into a claim about the whole website’s SEO.

Get an assessment you can use

• A working inventory with its sources and limits.
• An explanation of the main linked pages and link groups.
• Items that need further verification or an editor’s input.
• Prioritised recommendations and the conditions for acting on them.
• A record for tracking the agreed next steps.

The proposal defines the volume and depth of manual review.

Make changes only for a clear reason

A link is not removed, rewritten or disavowed because a tool assigns it a low score. Any proposed change must have a reason and take publication agreements into account.

The review may conclude that no immediate change is needed. Its purpose is to reduce uncertainty, not generate a removal list.

Build on the findings when appropriate

The next step could be to improve a resource, raise a specific issue with a publisher or plan new publications. A link-building strategy defines any further work and costs.

Analysis, outreach and content production are kept distinct in the quote.