Start with the reader
Ask who would naturally use this publication. What subjects does it cover? Is its geographic focus appropriate? Does your proposed article belong in the conversation its readers already expect?
For a local home-service business, a relevant property, home-improvement, trade, or regional context may make more sense than an unrelated technology blog. For a software company, the reverse may be true. The audience should guide the shortlist before a domain score does.
Assess the section as well as the domain
A general business publication may be appropriate if it has a coherent section and a topic that matches your expertise. A niche domain may still be inappropriate if the article has no useful relationship to your business.
Look at the intended section and neighbouring content. Can a reader follow the logic between the publication, the article, and the company mention? If that connection needs a convoluted explanation, the fit deserves another look.
Read recent work
Open recent articles rather than reviewing a list of metrics alone. Check whether the content is readable, factually coherent, and consistent with an intelligible editorial focus. Look for a maintained site and a clear publication identity.
No single visible factor proves a website is high quality. The point of reviewing several signals together is to avoid making a recommendation from a number or a logo in isolation.
Treat third-party metrics as screening evidence
An authority score is a third-party model, and a traffic estimate is an estimate. Neither guarantees readers for an individual article or establishes that an audience is relevant to your business. Any metrics used in a proposal should have an identified source and observation date.
Avoid buying a placement solely because it promises ranking credit. Google treats buying or selling links for ranking purposes as link spam and expects paid links to be appropriately qualified. That is separate from legitimately commissioning disclosed content for readers.
Ask for the commercial details before approving
The shortlist should identify the publishing website, intended topic and section, expected disclosure, link treatment, and any exceptional conditions. A proposed destination link should be useful in context and acceptable under the publisher’s policy.
Agree the substitution process as well. If a site becomes unavailable, an alternative should be reviewed for a comparable role and approved before it is commissioned. An unrelated domain is not a meaningful replacement simply because its authority score is larger.
Make the final report match the shortlist
At handover, compare the actual publication, topic, article, disclosure, and destination with what you approved. Separate live items from pending ones. A report should make it possible to answer “did we receive the agreed work?” without needing to infer the scope from screenshots.
The publication standards page sets out those checks, and the sample report shows the fields used to organise the evidence.
Sources and further reading
Publisher fit and honest disclosures guide these checks. For search-specific policies, consult the primary guidance below.
Ready to put a scope around your story?
Compare the packages or assemble the facts for a campaign brief.
Explore the campaigns