Candidate Publisher List for an SEO Project: A Process

A candidate publisher list is the working file that turns "where will we get coverage?" from a guess into a record. A candidate publisher list for an seo project grows out of the brief, meaning its topic, language, audience and target page; it is not a pile of sites someone happened to find. This article treats finding publishers for SEO projects as a sequence: derive criteria, choose channels, screen, record each candidate on one row and sort into three groups. All examples are hypothetical, and nothing here promises publication, links, traffic or rankings.

How to Build a Candidate Publisher List for an SEO Project From the Brief

The list is the first operational output after the brief, and every later choice leans on it. the guide to picking sites for sponsored posts explains how to judge one site; this article sits one step earlier and asks which sites deserve a look at all.

Picture a three-person agency taking over the SEO project of a hypothetical online tea shop. In week one everybody pastes site ideas into a chat thread. In week two the same sites are suggested again and nobody remembers why they were suggested. In week three the ideas move into a shared file, and for the first time it is visible who proposed what, which sites have been read and which are waiting.

What a list solves and what it leaves open

A list makes the search repeatable and easy to hand over. When someone leaves on holiday or the project changes hands, the answer to "why did we drop this site?" sits in the file. What the list cannot do is prove that a site will publish, will link or will truly fit the topic. Those remain observations that come out of screening and page reading.

Naming one owner for the file

One person should maintain the list while others leave comments. If three people add rows, column formats drift and the same site shows up twice under different names. Put the owner and a last-reviewed date at the top, so the project owner knows who to ask when an update is needed.

From Brief to Search Criteria: Topic, Language, Audience and Target Page

A brief can be reduced to four lines of search criteria. the walkthrough on briefing a publisher covers what you tell the publisher; here the same brief becomes something you can search with.

Three topic boxes: core, adjacent and excluded

The core box holds the project's centre of gravity. The adjacent box holds nearby subjects the same reader might meet on one site. The excluded box needs at least one line: if the hypothetical tea shop sells loose-leaf tea, a general lifestyle portal about cars falls in it. This third box stops you from adding every site your search happens to return.

Two sentences for language and audience

Do not leave the audience as "general readers". A sentence such as "home cooks in Britain who are moving from tea bags to loose leaf" fixes language and region together. It also becomes a quick test on a candidate's pages: would that reader plausibly open this one?

Pinning the target page to the search

If the target page is undecided, candidate choice floats. A product page, a category and a guide all attract different kinds of publishers. Write the target page as one sentence on the criteria row and keep it pinned at the top of the sheet.

Sourcing Channels: Search Results, Industry Directories and Existing Relationships

All three channels produce candidates, but different kinds. Keeping one column for the channel lets you see later which one paid off in useful rows. the comparison of marketplaces and direct outreach compares both routes after an order starts; this section looks only at how candidates are gathered.

Collecting candidates from search results

Run three to five queries drawn from the topic boxes. Note the sites that recur across different queries rather than only the top results of one; recurrence shows frequent contact with the topic cluster, though it is not proof of fit. Put sites that appear as competitors in a separate notes column, not in the candidate rows.

Industry directories and community pages

Trade associations, chambers and topic-specific community directories often list clusters of related sites. A directory entry is not an endorsement; it only says the site exists. Every directory candidate still goes through the first screen.

Moving existing relationships into the file

Publishers you have worked with before usually live in inboxes and phone contacts. Move them into the list with the previous cooperation note, the route you used to reach them and the date of the last contact. A familiar name does not skip the policy check.

First Screening: Policy and Accessibility

The first screen is a cheap filter that runs before any page reading. the ten-minute site check goes deeper; at this stage we only apply the minimum gates that keep the candidate list from swelling.

Policy page and contact route

If you cannot find a contact route, a publishing policy or a statement on sponsored content, the candidate goes straight to "later". Missing information does not make a site weak; it makes your decision harder and tells you not to order until the gap is filled.

Public and crawlable pages

Sites whose articles sit behind a login, or whose pages fail to open in an ordinary browser, do not enter the list. Google's crawlable links guidance says a link is reliably followed only when it is built as an anchor tag carrying an href; if the page source shows no such structure, visible link text alone is not a dependable connection.

Whether paid content is marked at all

Open one example on the site and check how paid pieces are labelled. If you see no labelling anywhere, you cannot know how your article would be presented to readers. That gap returns in the section on paid cooperation below.

Reading Topical Fit at the Page Level

A site's general theme can look right while the section that would host your piece reads differently. the piece on topical match for niche sites provides a fuller framework; in the candidate list the reading must stay light and recorded.

Opening three recent pieces from one category

Open the last three pieces from the category your article would sit in. Compare headline style, reading level and author voice against the audience sentence. If even one of the three is clearly off topic, note that the category serves a split readership.

The reader question test

Ask yourself what this site's reader would want to learn after landing on your target page. If the answer fits in one sentence, the fit is real. If you catch yourself building a case to persuade yourself, write "weak fit" in the row note.

Mixed languages and translation traces

When two languages share a category, judge which one the site serves from the category listing, not from one article. Text that reads like a literal translation may hint at a thin local readership; log it as a note, not a verdict.

Collecting Publisher Details on a Single Row

A one-row record is what keeps a list alive. Rows that grow long stop being updated, and rows that are too short force you to revisit the same site.

Six fields that every row needs

Each row carries the domain or site name, the channel, the contact route, a topical fit note, the policy status and the last-checked date. If all six are empty the row is not a candidate but a raw lead and belongs in a separate "leads" tab. Keep each field short enough to read at a glance: "search", "directory" or "relationship" for the channel; "clear", "missing" or "unclear" for policy.

Capping the free-text note

Limit the note to two sentences. Long notes hide the decision. When the reasoning needs more space, put it in a separate document and place only the link in the row.

Domain versus display name

One publisher can be known by several names. Match rows by domain and keep the display name in its own column so the same site is never added twice. If a publisher opens a new section on a subdomain, add a note to the existing row rather than a new row, unless that section has a separate editorial team and policy.

Splitting the List Into Three Groups: Now, Later, Dropped

Grouping is where the sheet becomes a decision tool. Groups should follow written rules, not mood. If you can show the same candidate to two colleagues and expect both to pick the same group, the rules are clear enough; if they disagree, the rule has a gap and should be repaired first.

The entry rule for "now"

A candidate enters "now" when the policy is clear, the contact route works, three pieces have been read and the fit note is positive. Missing one condition means it cannot enter. Write these conditions above the table so nobody bends the rule "just this once".

Keeping "later" from becoming a dumping ground

Every "later" row should state what is missing and when it will be rechecked. Undated "later" rows fade from view; three months on, nobody knows which ones were actually waiting.

Why dropped rows stay in the file

If you delete dropped candidates, you will find the same site again in a few weeks and repeat the same evaluation. Keep the reason and the date. If conditions change, for example a hypothetical site publishes a paid-content policy, the decision can be updated openly with its own date.

Clarifying Paid Cooperation and Labeling Expectations

If paid work is on the table, track it in its own field. The differences between link attributes are laid out in the comparison of link attribute types; here we only cover what to write on the candidate row.

Saying "paid" in the first message

The first contact message should state that the cooperation is paid. Leaving it to the end puts both sides in an awkward spot, and some publishers will not accept paid content at all, so learning that early saves time.

A written expectation for the link attribute

Google's guidance on marking outbound links puts sponsored first for ads and paid placements, treats nofollow as acceptable, and allows several values separated by spaces or commas. Its spam policies describe link spam as creating links primarily to manipulate rankings, and say paid links are not a violation when they are qualified. On the row, "link attribute: sponsored or nofollow accepted" is enough.

Disclosure label and how the piece is presented

Agree with the publisher how the article will be labelled on the page. The label should be visible and understandable. Paid content hidden from readers also erodes the publisher's own credibility.

Reviewing the Candidate List With the Project Owner

A list is not finished until the person who decides has reviewed it. Keep the review written and short, and store meeting notes inside the list file. Run the session as a joint test of the criteria, not a defence of the list. If the owner knows a candidate personally, that goes into the row as a note; it does not replace the policy and fit checks.

The one page sent before the meeting

Send the "now" group, one sentence of reasoning per row and the short reasons for dropped candidates, not the whole sheet. Link the full file for anyone who wants to read more.

How to word the approval note

Do not accept a bare "fine". Record which rows were approved, which were put on hold and which candidates were abandoned. Date the note so that a later order has something to refer to.

Turning an objection into a new criterion

If the owner dislikes a candidate, ask why and add the answer to the criteria row. "We do not want corporate-tone sites" becomes the rule for the next search.

Connecting the List to the Brief and the Order

The list only earns its keep when it matches your order records. the article on target page choice decides which page gets the link; the list says which publisher might carry it.

Carrying the candidate code into the order note

Give every candidate row a short code and put that code in the order description. Later you can trace any published piece back to the row it came from. The same code helps after delivery: add the live address, the check date and update the row status to "ordered", "live" or "problem".

A final fit check against the target page

Before ordering, set the brief's target page next to the candidate's category page. If the target is a product category, the candidate's readers should already have a reason to care about that category. If they do not, discussing a different target page costs less than ordering and regretting it.

What ordering looks like on Akua

Akua does not match you with publishers or suggest sites; you build the list yourself. Once a candidate's listing looks right, you select it, drop it into the basket and pay. The seller confirms the job and later reports completion with a delivery notice; if you see a mismatch, you can open a dispute. The order record makes no promise about timing, permanence or indexing.

Example Template: A Candidate Publisher List (Hypothetical)

The table below is invented for illustration. Domains, notes and dates match no real publisher. The hypothetical project is an online shop selling loose-leaf tea, and the target page is a "first loose-leaf tea guide".

Keep these rules fixed when you adapt the sheet to your own project:

• Every row carries a last-checked date; an undated row is not a candidate.
• Dropped rows stay in the file with their reasons.
• The paid-label column is never blank, because "unclear" is also an answer.

And each time you revisit the list, run through this order:

1. Check whether the brief changed and update the criteria rows.
2. Recheck rows whose dates are old.
3. Add new candidates using the same six fields.
4. Redistribute the groups and send the project owner a short note.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you find publishers for SEO projects?

Start from the project brief and pull out topic, language, audience and target page. Then use those criteria to collect candidates from search results, industry directories and relationships you already have. Write each one as a single row and run it through a first screen. Mixing channels keeps the list from depending on one source, and no channel is assumed to be enough by itself.

How many publishers should a candidate list hold?

There is no fixed number. The list should be longer than the set of orders you expect to place, so there is room to drop sites, but short enough that every candidate gets a page-level read. A small, clean "now" group with the rest waiting in "later" is easier to manage than one long list that nobody finishes reviewing.

What is the first thing to check when screening a publisher?

Look at publishing policy and accessibility: is there a contact route, is there any statement about sponsored or paid content, and can the public read the articles? If the policy cannot be found or the paid-content rule is unclear, the candidate moves to "later" or "dropped" no matter how good the topical fit looks.

What should be stated when a paid cooperation is planned?

Write down that the work is paid, which rel value the link will carry and whether the article will show a sponsorship label. Google guidance puts sponsored first for paid placements and treats nofollow as acceptable. If this expectation is missing from the first message and from your record, it turns into a negotiation later.

How often should I update the list?

Review it whenever the brief changes, after each order and at least once a quarter. Ownership may have changed, a policy page may have vanished or publishing may have slowed. The "last checked" column is the safeguard: a row with an old date is not trusted and waits in "later" until someone looks again.

Should the candidate list be shared with the client?

Usually yes, though not in raw form. The client should see the "now" group with a reason for each row, plus a short note on why others were dropped, so that approval rests on a record rather than a guess. Check your contract for confidentiality or commercial sensitivity before sharing site names, and write that decision into the record too.

Conclusion and Next Step

The job of a candidate list is not to find every possible site. It is to leave you with a written, repeatable basis for decisions: criteria derived from the brief, mixed channels, a first screen, one row per publisher and three groups. Once those are in place you can say, for each candidate in "now", why it is there. Having the list does not oblige you to order anything; it makes sure you know what you would do when you are ready.

When a candidate in your "now" group looks right, you can browse the available listings on the guest post page. Terms, delivery and labelling rules are written on each listing, and the final decision stays with your own criteria.