Migration link care
Site moves are where profiles quietly bleed out. We map the old link targets, watch the redirects and chase the publishers whose links broke in the process.
We place links where readers already are, then show you exactly where they landed.
Link building has a reputation problem, and mostly it earns it. The industry rewards speed, and speed rewards shortcuts. We took the opposite position: a slower pipeline, a smaller monthly ceiling, and a review step that occasionally kills a placement we have already paid for. It costs us margin and it keeps the results defensible.
Site moves are where profiles quietly bleed out. We map the old link targets, watch the redirects and chase the publishers whose links broke in the process.
If the page you want to build links to is not worth linking to yet, we will say so, and we can help fix it. Building links to a thin page is money spent teaching people the page is thin.
We pull the profiles of the sites beating you, strip out the noise, and show you the publishers that link to several of them and not to you. That list is usually the fastest route forward.
Before anything is placed we map what your profile already looks like and where it is lopsided. The plan then fills the gaps rather than piling more of the same anchors on top.
Publishers in Polish, Ukrainian, German and Spanish, approached in their own language by people who speak it. Translated outreach reads as translated outreach and gets ignored.
Nothing in the report is a score we invented. Where we quote a third-party metric we name the tool and the date it was pulled, because those numbers move and a figure without a date is decoration.
If a placement did not happen, the report says which one and why. Campaigns that only ever report successes are hiding the interesting part.
You get a spreadsheet and a short written summary. The spreadsheet is the record; the summary is there so that whoever forwards it to a finance director does not have to interpret it themselves.
Alongside new placements, each report lists everything we re-checked from previous cycles and its current state. Links that disappeared appear in the report as clearly as links that went live.
The publisher list is deliberately narrow and grows slowly. Every addition is read, checked and usually trialled on our own projects before a client sees it.
Placement and indexation are different problems. A link can be live and correct for weeks before a crawler gets to that page, particularly on smaller publishers. We report the live URL on the day it publishes so you are never waiting on a tool to tell you the work happened.
We do, to the publisher's brief. If you would rather supply drafts, we will edit them to the publisher's standard before submission.
We find out on the next scheduled check, tell you, and go back to the publisher. If it cannot be restored we replace it or credit it. This is written into how we work rather than offered case by case.
No, and you should be wary of anyone who does. We can guarantee where a link is placed, that it is live, and that we will keep checking it. What a search engine does with that is outside anybody's control.
By default yes, and the report states the attribute for every placement. A natural profile contains a mix, so we do not treat a nofollow from a strong publisher as a failure.
Often, yes. It usually starts with an audit and an unhappy conversation, and the first phase is subtraction rather than addition.
The team is distributed across Europe, which is mostly why the outreach in Polish, Ukrainian, German and Spanish is done by people who actually speak those languages.
We keep a separate project going where the working notes and the longer write-ups live. It is less polished and rather more detailed:
There is no sales sequence at the end of this. You write, we reply, and if it is not a fit we will usually be able to point you somewhere better.