linkpreneur Open books / Vetting
What we turn down,
and why.
Most sites we look at never reach a client. These are our own vetting verdicts, counted live from our records: how many sites we turned down, at which step, and for which reason. No site is named.
We turned down about 9 in 10 sites we decided on.
153 turned down, 19 approved: 153 of 172 sites decided, 89%. 30 more are still being checked.
Counted on 31 October 2026 at 09:08 UTC, over the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
01 / Step by step
Where sites drop out.
Every site we consider goes through the page scan, then the vetting checks, then a person. Each bar is what was left after the step before it.
7 caught as fake or empty
146 turned down by the checks or by a person
30 still being checked
Show the figures as a table
| Step | Sites | Left at this step |
|---|---|---|
| Sites considered | 202 | - |
| Not caught by the page scan | 195 | 7 caught as fake or empty |
| Through the vetting checks | 49 | 146 turned down by the checks or by a person |
| Approved | 19 | 30 still being checked |
02 / The reasons
Why they were turned down.
One reason per site: the one it was turned down for. Open a reason to see what the check looks at and what it protects you from.
Audience outside the market you buy for62 41%
What the check looks at
Where the site's organic visitors come from, compared with the countries the client wants to reach.
Why it matters to you
A link on a site whose readers live somewhere else reaches nobody you sell to.
62 sites, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
Traffic in decline33 22%
What the check looks at
The site's own organic traffic over time. A site that is steadily losing its visitors is turned down.
Why it matters to you
A fading host loses the readers your link was bought for, and a fading host can drag your link down with it.
33 sites, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
Below our quality bar23 15%
What the check looks at
Our Quality Score, built from the measurements of the site, under the bar a site must clear, confirmed by a person.
Why it matters to you
The bar keeps weak sites off your shortlist before anyone spends time or money on them.
23 sites, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
Hand-checked, for a reason that fits no category17 11%
What the check looks at
A person read the site and turned it down for a reason none of the categories describes. The reason is written down on our side.
Why it matters to you
Not every problem fits a rule. A person reviews every site before it can reach a client, and can say no for a reason a rule would miss.
17 sites, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
Fake or empty site7 5%
What the check looks at
The page scan reads the HTML of the site: a stale or missing copyright year, no privacy, about or contact page, mixed high-risk subjects, far more outbound links than an editorial page carries, thin or spun text, nobody named behind the words, and a footprint shared with other sites.
Why it matters to you
A site that only looks real has no readers to send you and exists to sell links.
7 sites, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
Expired domain rebuilt to sell links4 3%
What the check looks at
The domain's history shows a change of owner, and the homepage changed subject at that moment: an expired domain, bought and rebuilt.
Why it matters to you
Its authority was earned by a site that no longer exists. You would pay for what someone else built.
4 sites, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
Already crowded with commercial anchors3 2%
What the check looks at
The words other sites use to link to it. When most of them are commercial phrases rather than a brand or a plain address, the profile was bought rather than earned.
Why it matters to you
A link profile built from bought links is what link-spam rules look for, and your link would sit in that company.
3 sites, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
Borrowed history2 1%
What the check looks at
How many of the sites linking to it did so before the current owner registered the domain. Above a set share, the links belong to a previous owner.
Why it matters to you
The authority you would pay for was earned by someone else.
2 sites, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
Mostly AI-generated content1 1%
What the check looks at
Most of the site's recent articles read as generated text, with no sign of a writer who knows the subject.
Why it matters to you
A site filled to rank rather than to be read has no readers of its own to send you.
1 site, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
Private blog network1 1%
What the check looks at
Signs of one operator behind sites that look independent: shared IP addresses, analytics, nameservers and favicons, and the same content across domains.
Why it matters to you
Network sites exist to sell links, which is exactly what link-spam rules target.
1 site, the last 30 days, since 1 October 2026.
03 / Over time
Turned down, week by week.
Each column is one week, by the day a site was turned down. A highlighted reason stands out; the rest stay grey.
- Audience outside the market you buy for
- Traffic in decline
- Hand-checked, for a reason that fits no category
- Below our quality bar
- Fake or empty site
- Smaller reasons
A site is dated by the latest entry in its rejection log, which we keep since 15 September 2026; a site turned down before that is dated by the last change to its record. A site caught by the page scan is dated by its scan.
Show the figures as a table
| Week of | Turned down | Audience outside the market you buy for | Traffic in decline | Hand-checked, for a reason that fits no category | Below our quality bar | Fake or empty site | Smaller reasons |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28 September 2026 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 October 2026 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12 October 2026 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 19 October 2026 | 24 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 1 |
| 26 October 2026 | 104 | 47 | 25 | 5 | 15 | 4 | 8 |
04 / Said plainly
Where a person decided.
3 times a person overruled the page scan: they opened the site in a browser, checked it by hand and let it through anyway.
17 of the sites turned down (11%) were turned down by a person for a reason that fits no category. The reason is kept on our side, because it names the site.
3 of them were also banned for good, so nobody can add the domain again.
A site counts once, under the one reason it was turned down for, in the period it was decided. A site still being checked counts in the period it was added.
Checked means the site went through our page scan or our vetting checks and a verdict was recorded: approved, turned down, or recognised and kept out.
The figures are counted live from our records and cached for a few hours; any change to a verdict clears the cache at once.
We publish no domain and no publisher, so nobody can be named from this page, and none of the notes a person wrote. Only our own verdicts are counted, never a label from a data supplier.
When the checks were added
- 24 July 2026
- The page scan: the HTML of every site is read for the tells of a fake or empty site.
- 29 July 2026
- The deep checks: borrowed history, expired domains rebuilt to sell links, commercial anchor saturation, quiet sellers and known network fingerprints. The same day, every site got a subject label, and casino-adjacent sites and affiliate farms are refused.
- 15 September 2026
- A rejection log on every site: when, by whom or by which check, and why. The weekly figures on this page are dated from it.
- 24 October 2026
- This page.
Open data
Take the figures with you.
The counts on this page per reason and per week, for the period you chose, with the period and the moment they were counted. Aggregates only: no site, no domain, no note.
Questions about turning sites down
Turning sites down,
answered.
Why would a link building service reject a site?
Because a link is only worth buying on a site with real readers, a subject close to the client's page and no signs of a network built to sell links. Most sites we look at fail one of those checks, and a site that fails never reaches a client's recommendations.
What is a PBN?
A private blog network: several sites that look independent but are run by one operator to sell links. We look for the tells, such as shared IP addresses, analytics, nameservers and favicons, and the same content across domains, and turn those sites down.
Do you name the sites you turn down?
No. Naming them would name their owners, and a verdict about a site is not something we publish about a person. This page counts verdicts, never sites.
Can a site you turned down come back?
A person can reopen a site that was turned down, and it goes through the checks again. A banned domain cannot be added again by anybody.
Does a turned-down site still count in the price index?
A publisher quote counts in the price index whatever became of the site, so the market figures are complete. Subjects our vetting refuses are listed apart there, never as an ordinary row.
Know where every
dollar goes.
Publisher prices at cost. A fixed fee per link. A membership only if it pays off for you.
See the portalThe real client portal with example data. No account needed.