Recent content by Liam Cook

Good list. The main thing I’d add for 2026 is that “AI SEO tool” is too broad now. I’d separate the stack by job, not by hype. For technical SEO, Screaming Frog and Sitebulb are still hard to replace because they show crawl reality, not AI guesses. For content research, Ahrefs, Semrush...

If the existing page is genuinely relevant, indexed, has organic traffic, and your link can be added in a natural sentence, the insertion is usually the better buy. You are getting onto an aged URL that already has signals, rather than waiting for a new paid article to be indexed and earn any...

Good guide. The bit I’d emphasise is that “future proof” usually comes down to selection discipline, not just link type. A niche site with 10k real search traffic, ranking for relevant terms, and publishing useful editorial content can be far stronger than a DR70 site with random categories...

I’d separate two questions: placement value and indexing. A link insertion can be better when the existing page is already indexed, has real organic traffic, ranks for relevant terms, has internal links pointing to it, and your anchor fits naturally in the paragraph. In that case you are...

I would rank it as relevance first, then page quality, then traffic. Traffic is useful, but only if the traffic is coming from keywords that make sense for your site. A page getting 50k visits from an unrelated informational query is usually worse than a page getting 2k visits from a tight...

Safest in 2026 is not really about the method name, it is about the placement quality and footprint. I’d avoid judging prospects by DR alone. Check whether the site has real topical traffic, ranking keywords, recent editorial content, sensible outbound links, and a niche that actually matches...

Penalties usually come from patterns, not one single link. The safer approach is boring but effective: topical relevance first, then traffic quality, then anchor mix, then pacing. I would score every prospect before buying or approving it. Look at whether the site has real organic traffic...

DR is still useful as a quick filter, but it is a poor buying metric on its own. The links that seem to be holding up best are from sites with real topical depth, visible keyword rankings, steady traffic, and a clean outbound pattern. For niche edits, I would look harder at the insertion page...

Guest posts still work, but only when the placement looks like something an editor would have published anyway. The big mistake is treating every DR 50 site as equal. A smaller niche site with real rankings, actual topical content, and consistent traffic is usually more useful than a big...

A niche edit is when your link is added into an existing article on a site, instead of publishing a brand new guest post. The good version is simple: find an article that already ranks, already has topical relevance, and has a paragraph where your link genuinely adds context. The anchor should...

I’d choose based on the page you need to rank, not the label on the link. Niche edits usually work best when the existing article already has traffic, rankings, topical relevance and a clean outbound link profile. You’re adding context to a page Google already understands, so the link can...

In 2026 I’d judge links less by the label and more by the fit. A niche edit, guest post, HARO style placement, or digital PR link can all work if the site is real and the page makes sense. They can all be useless if the site is just selling placements. My checklist would be: Traffic quality...