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.
Fewer links, chosen properly, reported honestly.
After enough campaigns you learn that the difference between a link that works and a link that does nothing is almost never the metric on the domain. It is whether a real person would ever read the page it sits on. We select for that first and let the metrics follow.
Reports are written on the assumption that somebody sceptical will read them. Every placement carries the live URL, the anchor used, the target page, the publication date and a short note explaining why that publisher was on the list in the first place.
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.
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.
If a placement did not happen, the report says which one and why. Campaigns that only ever report successes are hiding the interesting part.
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.
You can send us a list of sites you are considering elsewhere and we will tell you which ones we would touch. Several clients started with exactly this and nothing else.
Longer campaigns built around something worth writing about — original data, a strong opinion, a tool. Slower to start, but the coverage tends to keep arriving after the campaign ends.
Every placement we make is re-checked on a schedule for as long as you are with us. If a link disappears, you hear it from us before you notice it in a tool.
Unlinked brand mentions, broken references to pages you moved, links lost in a site redesign. Recovering these is unglamorous and it is frequently the highest-return work available.
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.
Sometimes, and it depends entirely on the page. We will look at it and give you an honest read on whether publishers will take it.
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.
You always do. Nothing is pitched to a site you have not seen and signed off. If you want to be involved in the drafting as well, that is fine too.
We do, to the publisher's brief. If you would rather supply drafts, we will edit them to the publisher's standard before submission.
Nobody here came from a link marketplace. The background is in editorial and in running sites that depended on traffic, which is a different set of instincts than optimising a placement count.
We started as an in-house team doing this for one portfolio of sites, which is a useful way to learn the trade because you cannot hand the consequences to somebody else at the end of the quarter. When the process worked well enough that people started asking to borrow it, it became a service.
The team is small on purpose. Every publisher relationship is held by a person rather than a database, and there is a hard limit on how many of those relationships one person can maintain honestly. That limit is what caps our capacity.
If you are still comparing options, the site below covers a lot of the same ground from a different angle and is worth an hour of your time:
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.