Platform
Publisher quality standards applied before inventory goes live
Every publisher passes traffic, topical, outbound and editorial checks—plus manual review for risky patterns—before appearing in the marketplace. Periodic re-checks remove sites that slip.
The problem with vanity metrics as the only gate
Domain scores and traffic estimates alone cannot tell you whether a site accepts editorial contributions, moderates outbound links responsibly or stayed on-topic for the past year. Teams that buy purely on headline metrics often discover foreign-language clusters, expired-domain schemes or pages overloaded with unrelated inserts after money is spent. Regulated brands face compliance questions they cannot answer because nobody documented why a domain looked acceptable at purchase time.
Publisher quality standards define the gates every site passes before entering the vetted publisher marketplace and the re-check cycle that keeps inventory honest over time. Screening combines automated signals with manual review so context scores miss gets a second look. You still approve every placement individually—the standards reduce the pool to domains worth that review time.
How screening works
Initial evaluation covers organic traffic trends, topical alignment with stated categories, outbound link patterns, editorial history and signs of manipulative networks. Sites must meet minimum thresholds on each dimension rather than excelling on a single vanity number. Obvious link farms, expired-domain schemes and irrelevant foreign-language clusters are excluded at this stage. Gray-area sites may appear only when they match an explicit brief and carry a clear risk note you can reject without spending credits.
Periodic reviews remove or downgrade publishers whose traffic, relevance or editorial standards slip. Orders in flight are handled case by case if a publisher fails re-check mid-campaign; replacement rules in your proposal govern next steps when a live placement no longer meets agreed standards. Marketplace rows include summary vetting notes so approvers in the placement approval workflow understand why a domain passed—not just that it did.
What you see in the dashboard
Inventory rows show metric bands and short vetting notes rather than opaque scores alone. Link attributes such as sponsored or no-follow appear before you approve when publisher policy requires them; default inventory targets contextual editorial do-follow placements on sites that pass traffic checks. Content quality for guest contributions is handled by in-house editors who adapt your brief to publisher guidelines before submission, with internal review for accuracy, tone and compliance with anchor rules you set during onboarding.
Workspace blocklists and category exclusions add a second layer on top of global standards so off-brief publishers never enter proposals for your brand even if they remain in the broader pool. Changes to blocklists apply to future orders without rewriting completed placements, which keeps governance practical as competitive or compliance needs evolve.
Dimensions evaluated on every publisher
- Organic traffic trend and consistency
- Topical alignment with listed categories
- Outbound link ratio and partner patterns
- Editorial history and moderation level
- Network risk signals flagged in manual review
Standards in the delivery workflow
Quality gates sit upstream of approvals—you still sign off every placement, but proposals start from a vetted pool.
Inbound screening
New publishers pass automated and manual checks before their first row appears in marketplace filters.
Ongoing re-checks
Scheduled reviews downgrade or remove sites whose metrics or editorial behaviour slip after onboarding.
Editorial production
In-house editors adapt briefs to publisher guidelines and flag over-optimized anchors before submission.
Live verification
Published links are checked against agreed attributes before rows move into reporting and replacement rules apply if needed.
Who benefits: in-house teams vs agencies
In-house teams use documented standards during vendor security and legal reviews instead of relying on verbal assurances. SEO leads explain publisher choices to leadership with vetting notes attached to each approved row. Sensitive verticals can require dual approval in scoping so compliance stakeholders see the same notes approvers saw.
Agencies present consistent quality language across client workspaces because every account draws from the same screening framework, even when blocklists differ. Account leads answer client questions about domain risk with marketplace notes and replacement policies rather than ad-hoc research. Unbranded reporting still reflects placement types and indexation outcomes verified after publish.
Vertical considerations
Regulated categories—finance, health, legal—often use tighter publisher filters and mandatory stakeholder approval configured during scoping. Technical niches such as cybersecurity emphasise page-level relevance for niche edits because host page history matters as much as domain-level metrics. Seasonal verticals like travel still depend on the same re-check cycle even when briefs rotate toward timely publishers before peak windows.
Ecommerce programs add another lens: screening defaults exclude obvious coupon farms and thin shopping directories unless you explicitly brief otherwise. Retail trades and lifestyle editors with real editorial desks remain the default mix, which keeps category-page anchors surrounded by credible context rather than promotional clutter.
Related platform features
Quality standards underpin the publisher marketplace and inform what appears in reporting after order tracking verifies live links. Preview anonymised rows on sample inventory, then walk notes on representative domains during a demo. Read how delivery works for where screening sits relative to managed outreach and your approval queue.
Frequently asked questions
Practical answers for teams evaluating this part of the product.
What criteria determine publisher quality?
We evaluate organic traffic trends, topical alignment, outbound link patterns, editorial history and signs of manipulative networks. Manual reviewers spot context that automated scores miss. Sites must meet minimum thresholds on each dimension—not a single vanity metric.
Are publishers re-evaluated after onboarding?
Yes. Periodic reviews remove or downgrade sites whose traffic, relevance or editorial standards slip. Orders in flight are handled case by case if a publisher fails re-check mid-campaign. Replacement rules apply when a live placement no longer meets agreed standards.
How are sponsored or no-follow placements labelled?
When publisher policy requires sponsored or no-follow attributes, that label appears before you approve. Default inventory targets contextual editorial do-follow placements on sites that pass traffic checks. You always see link attributes in the proposal.
How do you handle risky or toxic patterns?
Obvious link farms, expired-domain schemes and irrelevant foreign-language clusters are excluded at screening. Gray-area sites may appear only when they match a explicit brief and carry a clear risk note. You can reject without spending credits.
Who ensures editorial quality on guest contributions?
In-house editors adapt your brief to publisher guidelines before submission. Drafts pass internal review for accuracy, tone and compliance with your anchor rules. Publishers retain final editorial control on their domains.
Can we see why a site passed screening?
Marketplace rows include summary vetting notes and metric bands rather than opaque scores alone. Quality standards documentation explains each gate in plain language. Demos walk through how notes map to your niche requirements.
See this workflow in a live demo
Walk the dashboard with an operator and decide whether the process fits your team.