Tip: Everybody wants backlinks, but few provide real value first in their cold outreach. Get high-quality backlinks by giving candidates a list of broken links on their sites and providing highly-relevant alternatives.

Thread 👇

If you're trying to boost your SEO with backlinks, "broken link building" is a better bet than your run-of-the-mill cold email. Here's how you do it.
First, find links to 404 pages from sites in your niche. You can do this by exploring blogs with a free tool called Check My Links.
But the easiest way to do it at scale is with services like Ahrefs or Moz. And you can also use these services to find out what other sites are linking to the broken page (the more the merrier).
Once you find something within your expertise, check out what the original article included by using archive .org. Then write something of your own that encompasses and improves upon it.
Finally, reach out and provide value to each site by giving them a list of all their broken links. And let them know that you've got a highly relevant article to replace one of them.
Now you've provided value and you're saving them time by providing a solid alternative — why wouldn't they take you up on it?

For more growth bites 👉 https://t.co/AdAiLkJ75R

More from Seo

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?