Use this checklist to systematically evaluate any potential link source. Score each section and determine overall link quality.
Quick Assessment (30 Seconds)#
Before deep evaluation, quick-check these deal-breakers:
- [ ] Site loads properly
- [ ] Content is in target language
- [ ] Not obviously spam
- [ ] Some relevance to your content
If any are "No": Skip this prospect, move on.
Section 1: Domain Quality#
Authority Metrics#
| Check | Status | Notes | |-------|--------|-------| | DA/DR meets your minimum threshold | ☐ | Score: ___ | | Reasonable for site type | ☐ | | | Consistent with site appearance | ☐ | | | Not suspicious (very high DA, no content) | ☐ | |
Minimum thresholds (adjust to your needs):
- Basic: DA 10+
- Moderate: DA 20+
- Good: DA 30+
- High quality: DA 40+
Traffic Indicators#
| Check | Status | Notes | |-------|--------|-------| | Site has real traffic (SimilarWeb check) | ☐ | Est: ___ | | Traffic matches authority metrics | ☐ | | | Traffic is from target geography | ☐ | | | Traffic trend is stable or growing | ☐ | |
Domain History#
| Check | Status | Notes | |-------|--------|-------| | Domain has reasonable age | ☐ | | | No history of spam/penalties | ☐ | | | Consistent ownership/purpose | ☐ | | | Not a recently expired domain flip | ☐ | |
Section 1 Score: ___ / 10
Section 2: Relevance#
Topical Relevance#
| Check | Status | Notes | |-------|--------|-------| | Site covers topics related to yours | ☐ | | | Content is in your industry/niche | ☐ | | | Audience overlap with yours | ☐ | | | Link would make sense contextually | ☐ | |
Page-Level Relevance#
| Check | Status | Notes | |-------|--------|-------| | Specific page is relevant to your content | ☐ | | | Your content adds value to their context | ☐ | | | Not a forced or unnatural fit | ☐ | |
Relevance Rating#
| Rating | Description | |--------|-------------| | High (5) | Directly in your industry, clear fit | | Medium (3) | Related industry, reasonable fit | | Low (1) | Tangential connection at best | | None (0) | No relevance, skip this prospect |
Section 2 Score: ___ / 10
Section 3: Content Quality#
Site-Level Content#
| Check | Status | Notes | |-------|--------|-------| | Original, quality content throughout | ☐ | | | Regular updates/new content | ☐ | | | Real author information | ☐ | | | Proper grammar and presentation | ☐ | |
Page-Level Content#
| Check | Status | Notes | |-------|--------|-------| | Substantive content (not thin) | ☐ | | | Well-written and formatted | ☐ | | | Provides genuine value | ☐ | | | Not primarily link-focused | ☐ | |
Content Red Flags#
| Flag | Present? | |------|----------| | Thin, short content pages | ☐ | | Obviously AI-generated without editing | ☐ | | Scraped or duplicate content | ☐ | | Keyword stuffing | ☐ | | No real information, just links | ☐ |
Section 3 Score: ___ / 10
Section 4: Trust Signals#
Positive Trust Indicators#
| Indicator | Present? | |-----------|----------| | Clear about/contact information | ☐ | | Social media presence | ☐ | | Real team/author information | ☐ | | Professional design | ☐ | | HTTPS security | ☐ | | Privacy policy | ☐ |
Business Legitimacy (if applicable)#
| Indicator | Present? | |-----------|----------| | Verifiable business information | ☐ | | Reviews or testimonials | ☐ | | Industry affiliations | ☐ | | Media mentions | ☐ |
Section 4 Score: ___ / 10
Section 5: Spam Signals#
Warning Signs#
| Signal | Present? | |--------|----------| | Excessive ads (especially intrusive) | ☐ | | Many outbound links (100+ per page) | ☐ | | Links to known spam sites | ☐ | | Pop-ups or redirects | ☐ | | Unrelated ad content | ☐ |
Spam Pattern Indicators#
| Pattern | Present? | |---------|----------| | Multiple unrelated topics | ☐ | | Links don't match content | ☐ | | Obvious paid link section | ☐ | | "Write for us" as main CTA | ☐ | | Links to gambling, pharma, adult sites | ☐ |
Technical Red Flags#
| Flag | Present? | |------|----------| | Shared hosting with many spam sites | ☐ | | Recently registered domain | ☐ | | Hidden or cloaked content | ☐ | | Automatic redirect chains | ☐ |
Any spam signals = significant concern
Section 5 Score: ___ / 10 (reverse scored—fewer signals = higher score)
Section 6: Link Potential#
Link Placement#
| Check | Status | Notes | |-------|--------|-------| | Link would be contextual (in content) | ☐ | | | Not just footer/sidebar placement | ☐ | | | Makes sense for their readers | ☐ | | | Would be do-follow (if known) | ☐ | |
Conversion Likelihood#
| Check | Status | Notes | |-------|--------|-------| | Site accepts external links | ☐ | | | Has linked out before | ☐ | | | Contact information available | ☐ | | | Reasonable response likelihood | ☐ | |
Section 6 Score: ___ / 10
Overall Evaluation#
Scoring Summary#
| Section | Score | Weight | Weighted Score | |---------|-------|--------|----------------| | Domain Quality | _/10 | 20% | ___ | | Relevance | _/10 | 30% | ___ | | Content Quality | _/10 | 20% | ___ | | Trust Signals | _/10 | 15% | ___ | | Spam Signals | _/10 | 10% | ___ | | Link Potential | /10 | 5% | ___ | | Total | | | **__/10** |
Decision Guide#
| Score | Decision | |-------|----------| | 8-10 | High priority prospect—pursue actively | | 6-8 | Good prospect—include in outreach | | 4-6 | Moderate—pursue if capacity allows | | 2-4 | Low priority—skip unless easy win | | 0-2 | Not worth pursuing—move on |
Quick Reference Card#
Must Have (Deal-Breakers)#
- [ ] Relevant to your niche
- [ ] Not spam/low quality
- [ ] Real website with real content
- [ ] No major red flags
Nice to Have (Value-Adds)#
- [ ] High authority (DA 30+)
- [ ] Significant traffic
- [ ] Established, trusted site
- [ ] Strong content quality
Bonus Factors#
- [ ] Perfect topical fit
- [ ] High traffic potential
- [ ] Relationship building opportunity
- [ ] Competitor already has link from here