If you could keep only ONE backlink metric in 2026, what would it be?

I recently asked whether SEOs continue building links after a site reaches the top positions. The answers were mixed — some keep pushing, some slow down, and others shift their focus to CRO, content, or internal linking. That discussion raised another question:

When evaluating a website for link placement, what's the very first metric you check in 2026?

1. DR?
2. Traffic?
3. Relevance?
4. Indexation?
5. Referring domains?
6. Something else?

Personally, I've simplified my process over the years. The first thing I look at is the number of referring domains.

I'm generally more comfortable with websites that have a reasonably established backlink profile rather than a very small number of referring domains supporting a high metric.

The second thing I check is whether the DR and RD profile looks natural.

I don't necessarily chase the highest DR. What matters more to me is whether the overall profile makes sense. Sometimes a site shows strong metrics, but the backlink profile doesn't look convincing.

These two checks eliminate a lot of websites before I even look deeper. Curious how others approach this.

What's the very first thing you check before buying a backlink? And what would make you instantly reject a site?

I deal with PBNs a lot so Referring domains.

But after heavy filtration.
These days there is so much automated spam.
Domain might look impressive with 500 RD while there is only 20 links worth a damn.

It all starts with RD for me.
Then further checks follow.

honestly if i could keep only one metric, i'd probably take traffic. i've seen way too many sites with nice DR and nothing else going on

I'd keep 2 things, not just one, and I don't care about you forcing people to pick only 1.

For me it would be traffic and relevancy, I don't care (that much) about RDs and DR anymore, if you have quality traffic you can ignore google altogether since these mofo monopolized and regulate all traffic anyway.

So yeah, it's traffic (for the money), and then relevancy for the rankings, everything else is secondary IMO...

MajestySEO said:

I think relevance niche is Ok but not always.
You just need to be creative here, for example, a business website could publish an article like "How to Manage Your Budget for Your Next Trip" and naturally add travel related information. If the content fits the topic and provides value, the link can still make sense even if the niches aren't identical.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I never mentioned the word "niche", when I said "relevancy" I referred to relevancy between the content of both pages (the source, and the destination page). But it was probably hard to see.

So I agree with you...

MajestySEO said:

Good catch. Looks like my SEO brain auto translated "relevancy" into "niche relevancy" and ran with it.

I agree though. Page to page relevance is probably the more important factor.

Click to expand...

it's ok

For me relevance comes first A DR 70 site in a random niche is far less valuable than a relevant site with real authority and an organic looking backlink profile

for me relevance beats every metric A link from a site that's genuinely related to my niche is often more valuable than a higher DR site with no topical connection Instant pass if the site looks like it publishes everything for everyone