Broken link building: replacing dead references properly
Broken link building is the tactic with the clearest reason to reply, because the page you are writing about already has a problem you can solve.
What is broken link building?
Broken link building means finding a page that links to a URL which no longer resolves, then offering your equivalent page as the replacement. It only works when your page really does cover what the dead one covered.
How to find the opportunities
- Start from pages you would want a link from anyway: resource lists, guides and reference pages in your subject.
- Check their outbound links for URLs returning a 404 or 410, or domains that no longer resolve.
- Read what the dead link was cited for. The anchor text and the surrounding sentence tell you what the editor needed.
- Only then ask whether you have that thing.
Deciding whether you have a replacement
The test is substitution: if the editor swaps your URL in, does the sentence around it still make sense, and does the reader still get what was promised? If the answer needs a caveat, you do not have a replacement yet. Writing one is a legitimate option, provided the subject is genuinely part of what you cover.
What the email should contain
- Which page you were reading, and where on it the dead link sits.
- What the dead link used to point to.
- Your replacement URL and one sentence on why it fits that sentence.
- No pitch about your company, and no follow up pressure.
LinkRobin drafts this message from the page itself, including the anchor context, and holds it for your approval before anything leaves your inbox.
After the placement
Confirm the swap actually happened: fetch the page, check your URL is present, read the anchor and rel attribute, and keep a dated screenshot. Editors sometimes reply positively and never make the edit.
Frequently asked questions
Why do editors respond to broken link emails?
Because the message is about their page, not yours. A dead reference is a small defect they would fix anyway, and you are handing them the fix.
What if your page is not a real replacement?
Then do not send the email. Suggesting a loosely related page in place of a specific dead source wastes the editor's time and burns the contact.
Should you rebuild the dead page?
Only if the subject is genuinely yours to cover and you can do it better than the original. Recreating someone else's archived article purely to claim their links is a link scheme in a thin disguise.