A link reclamation checklist

Link reclamation starts with proving what changed. Compare a current, complete source-page check with the last dated evidence that found your link. Then decide whether the right action is a correction request, a repair on your own site or no request at all.

This checklist fits an existing reference. If the publisher never linked to you, use the unlinked-mention review instead. The wider link-building workflow keeps those two situations separate so your request describes the relationship honestly.

Establish the old placement

Find the original source URL, linked destination and positive observation. Keep the date and evidence location together. An old campaign note saying “published” is weaker than a saved observation showing the actual hyperlink.

If your only evidence is an imported row, retain the supplier name and collection date. Explain that limitation in the review. Do not turn an uncertain historical record into a claim that the publisher removed something you personally verified.

Read any prior correspondence before drafting. A placement may have been temporary, tied to an event or subject to an editor's later review. Those terms change whether a restoration request makes sense.

Inspect the current page and your own destination

Follow the backlink verification steps on the exact source URL. Check redirects, the article body and the actual destination. A renamed anchor or moved article can look like a loss to a brittle match.

Inspect your own resource next. Does it still answer the question the publisher cited? Does it load without an unexpected login, expired offer or broken download? Repair problems you control before asking someone else to spend time on the page.

Google's HTTP documentation distinguishes successful responses from error responses. Use status information alongside the visible content; the status alone does not tell you whether a replacement remains useful.

Select the request from the evidence

A restoration request fits a complete page that no longer contains a previously confirmed reference, when the resource still serves the reader. A destination update fits a link that remains but points to an obsolete address. A clarification fits an ambiguous change that you cannot explain from the page.

No request is also a valid result. An editor may have removed an outdated section, stopped maintaining the resource list or chosen a different source. Your record should preserve that decision rather than reopening the same prospect every month.

Avoid guessing the editor's motive. Write the observed change and the reader problem, if there is one. A practical correction is easier to assess than an accusation about lost ranking credit.

Worked example: a moved worksheet

This synthetic case concerns a publisher article linking to a budgeting worksheet. Your site retired the old download path and sent visitors to a broad signup page. The publisher later removed the reference.

A review finds the old positive observation, the current complete article without the link and the changed destination behavior. The first repair belongs to your team: restore a useful worksheet page or a suitable replacement that readers can reach.

Only after that repair should a reviewer consider a request. The handoff can identify the original article section and provide the corrected worksheet address. It should acknowledge that the destination changed rather than implying the publisher made an unexplained mistake.

If the original worksheet no longer exists and no replacement answers the same need, close the task. A commercial landing page with similar keywords is not automatically a suitable substitute.

Prepare a short evidence packet

Include the source page, relevant section, old destination, proposed destination and the dates of the supporting observations. Add one sentence explaining what the reader gains from the correction.

Keep your full audit history in your own records. A publisher usually needs enough context to locate and assess the issue, not a large attachment of crawler output. Do not expose private campaign notes or internal contact labels in the message.

Use the agent outreach handoff to carry the approved recipient and message state. Drafting a repair note does not authorize sending it.

Verify after a response

If the publisher changes the page, inspect it again and save the new observation. A positive email reply and a live hyperlink are different evidence. Keep both without treating the reply as a completed technical check.

Return the repaired placement to the monitoring checklist. If no change occurs, record the outcome and avoid repeated requests without new context. The goal is a useful, accurate reference for readers and a record your team can explain later.

Sources

1. How HTTP status codes affect Google's crawlers · Google · 2026-02-04