Domain quality
Authority, organic visibility, backlink health, spam evidence, and the credibility of the publication itself.
Scoring methodology
Three weighted evidence layers explain why a publisher fits your project, before it can enter a campaign.

80-100
Strong Match
Compelling project and placement evidence
66-79
Good Match
Useful fit with manageable evidence gaps
45-65
Conditional Match
Review context before qualification
0-44
Weak Match
Insufficient fit for this project
The model explains each component. Code clamps the values, applies fixed weights, and assigns the final match label.
Authority, organic visibility, backlink health, spam evidence, and the credibility of the publication itself.
Exact topic overlap, adjacent use cases, shared audience, shared problem context, market, owner rules, and the project visibility goal.
Whether an observed backlink or editorial page can naturally support a useful in-content mention for this project.
final score = (domain quality × 0.30) + (project fit × 0.45) + (placement fit × 0.25)
Scoring begins with the project brief and observed provider, website, and source-page evidence.
Niche, topics, audience, market, differentiator, visibility goal, and owner qualification rules.
Ahrefs DR plus DataForSEO traffic, rank, referring-domain, backlink, and spam evidence.
Crawled homepage content, metadata, ranked keywords, and discoverable editorial pages.
Representative source pages, anchors, semantic location, link type, and page archetype.
The formula stays fixed. The selected visibility outcome changes what strong evidence looks like.
Prioritizes topical authority, real organic visibility, editorial standards, natural in-content placement, and useful dofollow links.
Prioritizes credible, crawlable sources with factual reference content, clear structure, and attributable editorial ownership.
Balances organic authority with sources that search engines and answer engines can understand, trust, and cite.
Missing placement context lowers confidence. It does not turn an unknown into a false negative.
High confidence
A real competitor source page provides URL, anchor, placement type, semantic location, and dofollow evidence.
Medium confidence
A public page or title on the prospect site shows plausible placement context, but not an existing competitor link.
Low confidence
Placement fit stays neutral and the missing evidence is recorded instead of becoming a confident rejection.
Prospect fit evaluates a publisher for one project. Link Audit measures the link profile of your own site.
Answers: should this publisher be considered for this project? It ranks research in the Prospect library and explains the evidence.
30% quality + 45% project + 25% placement
Answers: where is your own link profile strong or exposed? It tracks authority gap, anchor health, money-page coverage, and link velocity.
40% authority + 20% anchor + 20% pages + 20% velocity
Qualification and outreach remain explicit campaign actions controlled by the owner.
No. Ahrefs DR is one domain-quality signal and may also act as a minimum gate. The final fit score combines domain quality, project fit, and placement fit.
Yes. Project settings accept additional plain-language rules. LinkIntel includes them in the project rubric and fingerprints the rule set so changed criteria can trigger a fresh evaluation.
No. A scored domain enters the project Prospect library. An owner must explicitly add it to an active campaign before any outreach workflow can begin.
No. The score ranks the quality and relevance of a link opportunity from observed evidence. It does not predict or guarantee a search, traffic, placement, or citation outcome.
Start with evidence