Solutions / Link prospecting

Link-building site analyzer

Every donor site is checked against your own checklist — topical fit, traffic quality, outbound-link profile, spam signals — and comes back with a verdict and the reasons behind it in seconds.

Marketing SEO Automation
500+ sites
a day, against 30–40 by hand
Your checklist
not a generic authority score
Reasons given
on every rejection
Who it is for

SEO and link-building leads vetting a hundred or more donor sites a month, where the checklist currently lives in one person’s head.

Short answer

Paste a list of candidate sites and get each one back scored against the criteria your team actually uses: is the topic close enough, does the traffic look real, how many outbound links per post, is there a paid-post footprint, does the content read like it was written for readers. Accept, borderline and reject, with the evidence attached — so a junior can run the first pass and a senior only reviews the borderline pile.

The problem

Vetting a site properly takes ten minutes, and the list has four hundred sites on it.

01

Manual vetting caps the pipeline

Thirty to forty sites a day is what careful review gets you. Everything above that either waits or gets waved through on a metric that was never enough on its own.

02

The standard drifts between people

Two specialists accept different sites, and neither can fully explain the rule. Six months later nobody knows why half the placements were bought.

03

The bad ones are expensive twice

A link on a spam farm costs the fee and then costs the cleanup. The signals were visible before the money moved; nobody had ten minutes to look.

How it works

From trigger to result, step by step.

01

Write your checklist into rules

We take the criteria your senior actually applies — topical distance, traffic shape, outbound-link density, footprint of paid posts, thin content, the niches you avoid — and make them explicit. Half the value of the project shows up in this conversation.

02

Gather the evidence per site

Third-party metrics where you have subscriptions, plus a crawl of the site itself: recent posts, publishing cadence, author pages, ad density, and a sample of the actual writing.

03

Judge topical fit with a model

A model reads the sampled content and rates how close the site sits to your topic and audience — the judgement a keyword overlap score keeps getting wrong.

04

Score, bucket and explain

Accept, borderline, reject, each with the rules that fired and the evidence behind them. Borderline is a real bucket on purpose: it is where a human should spend their attention.

05

Deliver where outreach happens

Verdicts land in your sheet, Airtable or CRM with contact details where they are public. Placement outcomes come back in, so the rules tighten on your own results rather than on a vendor’s benchmark.

Before / after

What changes on the ground.

Today, by hand
×30–40 sites a day, on a good day
×The checklist lives in one person’s head
×Two specialists accept different sites
×Bad placements found after paying
With the automation running
500+ sites screened a day
The checklist is written down and applied evenly
Every verdict carries its reasons
Seniors review only the borderline pile
What you get

Delivered, not demoed.

Your vetting checklist encoded as explicit, editable rules
Per-site evidence gathering: metrics, crawl and content sample
Topical-fit scoring by a model, not by keyword overlap
Accept / borderline / reject buckets with reasons attached
Delivery into your outreach tooling, with outcome feedback
Built with

We build in your stack rather than moving you onto ours. The list below is what this solution most often connects to — other systems are a scoping question, not a blocker.

Python Playwright Ahrefs API Majestic OpenAI PostgreSQL Google Sheets Airtable
Time to production3–4 weeks
Build priceFixed quote
First stepFree mini-audit
Honest limits

When this is not the right solution.

·If you buy packages from a marketplace and never see the site list, there is nothing here to automate. The vetting you are paying for is somebody else’s.
·It does not do the outreach. Writing and sending the pitch is a separate solution, and the two are usually built one after the other.
·It will not replace judgement on the ten sites that matter most. It clears the four hundred that do not, so your senior has time for the ten.

Questions we get about this one

It works better with them and still works without. Without third-party metrics we lean harder on the crawl and content analysis, and we will be explicit about what that costs in accuracy.

Bring us the process that hurts.

The mini-audit is free: we take your version of this process apart and tell you plainly whether automating it pays. If it does, you get a scope and a fixed price.