Link Quality Scorecard: Rate Link Opportunities Consistently

This scorecard provides a systematic way to evaluate and compare link building prospects. Use it to prioritise opportunities objectively.

How to Use This Scorecard#

Basic Process#

1. Gather information on the prospect
2. Score each criterion (1-5)
3. Apply weights
4. Calculate total score
5. Compare and prioritise

Scoring Scale#

| Score | Meaning | |-------|---------| | 5 | Excellent—exceptional quality | | 4 | Good—above average | | 3 | Average—acceptable | | 2 | Below average—some concerns | | 1 | Poor—significant issues | | 0 | Disqualifying—do not pursue |

Scorecard Template#

Prospect Information#

| Field | Information | |-------|-------------| | Domain | | | Page URL | | | Opportunity Type | | | Date Evaluated | | | Evaluated By | |

Criterion 1: Domain Authority#

Weight: 20%

How authoritative is the linking domain?

| Score | Description | |-------|-------------| | 5 | DA 60+ (or equivalent DR/TF) | | 4 | DA 40-59 | | 3 | DA 25-39 | | 2 | DA 15-24 | | 1 | DA 10-14 | | 0 | DA under 10 or clearly manipulated |

Score: ___ × 0.20 = ___

Notes: ___________________

Criterion 2: Relevance#

Weight: 30%

How relevant is the site/page to your content?

| Score | Description | |-------|-------------| | 5 | Perfectly aligned—exact industry/topic | | 4 | Highly relevant—same niche | | 3 | Moderately relevant—related topic | | 2 | Somewhat relevant—tangential connection | | 1 | Weak relevance—barely related | | 0 | No relevance—different industry entirely |

Score: ___ × 0.30 = ___

Notes: ___________________

Criterion 3: Traffic Quality#

Weight: 15%

Does the site have real, valuable traffic?

| Score | Description | |-------|-------------| | 5 | 100K+ monthly visits, highly engaged | | 4 | 50-100K visits, good engagement | | 3 | 10-50K visits, reasonable engagement | | 2 | 1-10K visits | | 1 | Under 1K visits but legitimate | | 0 | No traffic or fake traffic |

Score: ___ × 0.15 = ___

Notes: ___________________

Criterion 4: Content Quality#

Weight: 15%

How good is the content on the site?

| Score | Description | |-------|-------------| | 5 | Exceptional—publication-quality content | | 4 | High quality—well-written, valuable | | 3 | Acceptable—standard quality | | 2 | Below average—thin or mediocre | | 1 | Poor—low quality but not spam | | 0 | Spam or completely worthless |

Score: ___ × 0.15 = ___

Notes: ___________________

Criterion 5: Trust Signals#

Weight: 10%

How trustworthy does the site appear?

| Score | Description | |-------|-------------| | 5 | Highly trusted—established brand, credentials | | 4 | Well-trusted—legitimate business, good signals | | 3 | Reasonably trusted—standard signals present | | 2 | Some trust concerns—limited signals | | 1 | Low trust—few positive signals | | 0 | Untrustworthy—spam signals, suspicious |

Score: ___ × 0.10 = ___

Notes: ___________________

Criterion 6: Link Placement#

Weight: 10%

Where would the link be placed?

| Score | Description | |-------|-------------| | 5 | Prime contextual—high in relevant content | | 4 | Good contextual—within related content | | 3 | Acceptable—resource section or similar | | 2 | Sidebar/footer—less prominent | | 1 | Author bio only—minimal placement | | 0 | No good placement possible |

Score: ___ × 0.10 = ___

Notes: ___________________

Final Calculation#

Score Summary#

| Criterion | Raw Score | Weight | Weighted Score | |-----------|-----------|--------|----------------| | Domain Authority | ___ | 0.20 | ___ | | Relevance | ___ | 0.30 | ___ | | Traffic Quality | ___ | 0.15 | ___ | | Content Quality | ___ | 0.15 | ___ | | Trust Signals | ___ | 0.10 | ___ | | Link Placement | ___ | 0.10 | ___ | | TOTAL | | | ___/5 |

Interpretation Guide#

Score Ranges#

| Score | Priority | Action | |-------|----------|--------| | 4.5-5.0 | Highest | Pursue immediately, prioritise | | 4.0-4.4 | High | Strong prospect, active pursuit | | 3.5-3.9 | Medium-High | Good opportunity, include in campaign | | 3.0-3.4 | Medium | Acceptable, pursue if capacity | | 2.5-2.9 | Low-Medium | Lower priority, batch outreach | | 2.0-2.4 | Low | Only if very easy win | | Under 2.0 | Skip | Don't pursue |

Batch Comparison Template#

Compare Multiple Prospects#

| Prospect | Domain | Auth. | Relev. | Traffic | Content | Trust | Place. | Total | |----------|--------|-------|--------|---------|---------|-------|--------|-----------| | 1 | | | | | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | 3 | | | | | | | | | | 4 | | | | | | | | | | 5 | | | | | | | | |

Weight Customisation#

Adjust Weights for Your Needs#

If authority is most important:

• Increase Authority weight to 30%
• Decrease others proportionally

If relevance is critical:

• Increase Relevance weight to 40%
• Decrease others proportionally

If traffic matters most:

• Increase Traffic weight to 25%
• Decrease others proportionally

Industry-Specific Adjustments#

| Industry | Suggested Adjustment | |----------|---------------------| | YMYL (health, finance) | Increase Trust to 20% | | Local business | Add Geography criterion | | E-commerce | Increase Traffic to 20% | | B2B | Increase Relevance to 35% |

Quick Scoring Guide#

For Speed Evaluation#

If time is limited, use simplified scoring:

| Quick Check | Pass/Fail | |-------------|-----------| | DA 20+ | ☐ | | Relevant to niche | ☐ | | Real traffic | ☐ | | Quality content | ☐ | | Not spam | ☐ |

4-5 passes: Pursue 3 passes: Consider Under 3 passes: Skip

Related Resources#

• Link Quality Checklist
• Prospecting Spreadsheet
• Evaluating Link Opportunities