Links October 12, 2026
How to choose link sources in gambling, crypto and forex niches
A good link source is a real publication with real readers. Here is a concrete evaluation model and Google’s own wording on what not to do.
In a niche where every link is a risk, source choice matters more than link count. One good link in a real publication is worth more than ten links in a network nobody reads.
Five criteria
- Real readers: the publication has an actual audience, not just domain authority
- Topical fit: the site writes about your topic or an adjacent one
- Editorial independence: the text passed an editor’s hands, it is not a “post for sale”
- Labelling: paid collaboration is disclosed and the rel attribute is right
- Local relevance: the site is in the target country’s language and read there
What Google says
Google’s spam policy calls links made mainly to influence rankings link spam. Paid links are allowed when qualified with rel="nofollow" or rel="sponsored". The policy also covers site reputation abuse (third-party content on a strong site to exploit its authority), expired domain abuse and mass low-value content.
Example: on 28 August 2026 Google announced it will not enforce site reputation abuse manual actions in the European Economic Area (from 30 August, at the European Commission’s request). The policy stands and applies outside the EEA. Anyone who concludes “now it is fine” takes a risk: algorithms may still treat a section separately, and reader trust does not depend on Google’s enforcement.
Red flags
- The site publishes everything: casino, crypto, dentistry and carpets, with no clear topic
- The price is set by “DR” and nobody asks about the content
- The same text appears on several sites in a network
- An expired domain whose former content has nothing to do with the new one
- No contact details, author or editorial team
Green signs
- A named author whose work you can check
- The publication cites other sources and is itself cited
- Real comments, shares or newsletter subscribers are visible
- The site has existed for a long time and its topic has not shifted
- The price of the collaboration is explained and the labelling agreed
Evaluation in practice
Check three things before each placement: has your topic appeared in the site’s history, are the last month’s posts written for real readers, and does the site have a local audience. If two answers are “no”, walk away.
Document every link
- Source and date
- Topic and language
- rel attribute (sponsored, nofollow or ordinary editorial)
- Reasoning for why this site fits
- Status (live, removed, changed)
A register like this helps in an audit and when rules change and links need review.
What to ask a publication before collaborating
- Who the editor is and how texts are checked
- How many real readers there are per month and where they come from
- How paid content is labelled
- Whether the same text appears elsewhere
A publication that answers these is usually the right place. If no answer comes, that is already an answer.
A sample scoring
Give each criterion 0 to 2 points (up to 10 in total). If a source scores under 7, or any criterion is zero, skip the placement.
- Real readers: 2 = comments, shares and subscribers are visible; 0 = only domain authority
- Topical fit: 2 = the site writes on the topic regularly; 0 = all topics mixed
- Editorial independence: 2 = a named author and editor; 0 = an anonymous post for sale
- Labelling: 2 = rel is agreed; 0 = refuses to label
- Local relevance: 2 = target-country language and audience; 0 = translation with no audience
Keep the score in the register. If someone asks in a year why a link is there, the answer exists.
