The public quality rules behind every placement decision.

1) Publisher standards

Every placement must appear on a site that has a real editorial footprint, visible search trust, topical coherence, and enough quality signals that the placement reads like real publishing rather than rented authority cosplay.

• Real sites only: no PBNs, circular network junk, or sites built primarily to sell placements.
• Topical fit: the domain should have believable overlap with the client topic or a clear adjacent audience.
• Search credibility: approval depends on verifiable organic visibility, not vanity metrics alone.
• Ongoing acceptability: a site can qualify today and still be removed later if quality collapses.

2) Content standards

Quality content should help the publisher page make sense on its own. That means readable, relevant, and not assembled with all the grace of a ransom note.

• Original work: content is written for the order rather than copied, spun, or recycled.
• Reader-first baseline: articles should be understandable to humans without needing a decoder ring.
• Editorial fit: the topic should belong on the publisher site instead of looking stapled on for SEO alone.
• Revision tolerance: publishers may request edits to satisfy their editorial requirements.

3) Link placement standards

A qualifying link is expected to appear contextually within article body copy and support the surrounding narrative rather than interrupt it.

• In-content placement: links should appear in article body copy, not in author bios, footers, or obvious low-value zones.
• Commercially sensible anchors: branded and natural anchors are preferred; manipulative anchors may be declined.
• Publisher-policy awareness: follow or nofollow behavior may vary according to publisher policy and package terms.
• Expectation of permanence: placements are pursued as durable links, but publishers still control their sites.

4) Covered removal and degradation

A covered issue includes complete link removal and certain quality failures that leave the link technically live but materially less valuable.

• Full link removal or loss of live page availability
• Dofollow changed to nofollow, sponsored, or ugc where that change undermines the original value
• Movement into clearly lower-value positions
• Material anchor-text changes that break the placement intent
• Severe content gutting or page suppression
• Publisher penalty or catastrophic visibility collapse within the coverage window

5) Replacement framework

When a covered issue appears within the active protection window, the replacement path is deliberate:

1. Attempt restoration with the original publisher when feasible.
2. If restoration fails, source a comparable replacement based on the original package’s quality band and topical intent.
3. If no comparable replacement can be secured in the documented window, issue a placement credit under the refund-policy terms.

Comparable does not mean a mathematically identical site. It means the replacement fits the original order’s general quality and commercial intent.

6) Exclusions

Not every change creates replacement eligibility. Covered handling may not apply when:

• The client requested the removal or major URL change after publication
• Client-side site changes triggered the publisher action
• The issue appears after the six-month protection window
• The claimed issue does not materially reduce the original placement value

7) Monitoring approach

Placements are monitored during the active guarantee window for link presence, attribute changes, page status, and major quality deterioration. Monitoring is designed to surface issues proactively instead of relying entirely on client discovery.

8) Replacement timing

The timing standard for covered issues is:

• Acknowledgment: within 2 business days
• Replacement target: within 15 business days
• Credit fallback: if no comparable placement is secured within 30 business days

This page defines quality. For the broader operating commitments, move into the Service Level Agreement.