Backlink Audit: Optimize Your SEO

• Dubious source. Site without a clear editorial line, mass-generated pages, very similar blog networks.
• Empty context. The link is placed in a paragraph unrelated to your activity.
• Weak target page. The backlink points to a poor, outdated page or one that cannot be recommended in an AI response.
• Repetitive profile. Same type of anchor, same domain patterns, same artificial logic.

A link is only valuable if it strengthens a page that a human or a response engine could cite without hesitation.

An SME that treats its link profile as a reputation asset makes better decisions. It does not just seek to "do link building". It builds trust signals. If you want to place this work in a broader vision of external authority, the off-page SEO remains the right framework for understanding.

Preparing your audit and collecting data

A failed backlink audit almost always starts the same way. You export a report from a single tool, sort by score, and then think you have "the list". In reality, you only have a partial angle.

Each tool sees a part of the web, with its own database, its own metrics, and its own limits. If you audit only with Google Search Console, you will miss useful qualification signals. If you audit only with a third-party tool, you risk overlooking links that Google knows very well. The only reliable method is to consolidate multiple sources into a master sheet.

Start by defining the real objective of the audit

Not all audits seek the same thing. Before opening Ahrefs, Semrush, or Majestic, write down what you want to solve. Otherwise, you will mix several problems and make poor decisions.

Here are the most common cases:

1. SEO drop after a migration or redesign
   The main risk here is the loss of deep links to old URLs.

2. Growth stalled despite decent content
   In this case, the issue often comes from a weak, poorly distributed, or thematically muddled profile.

3. History of aggressive link building
   You are mainly looking for manipulated links, excessive anchors, and suspicious domains.

4. GEO preparation and AI visibility
   The audit must then check if the links point to pages capable of responding to conversational queries.

This initial definition influences everything. The same backlink may be acceptable in a purely defensive audit but not very useful in an AI visibility-oriented audit.

Export from Google Search Console

Google Search Console remains the starting point. It is not the most comfortable tool for qualifying links, but it is the perspective of the engine you are trying to convince.

Export at a minimum:

• Referring domains
• Most linked pages
• Available anchors
• External links to strategic pages

Keep these exports in a dedicated tab. Do not mix them right away with other sources. You will need to return to the raw data.

Add Ahrefs, Semrush, and Majestic

Each platform brings something different to a backlink audit.

Ahrefs for quick profile reading

Ahrefs is often the simplest for spotting:

• new links
• lost links
• dominant anchors
• pages that really receive authority

Its interface helps a lot when you need to quickly understand what points to a category, a product sheet, or a service page.

Semrush for toxicity signals

Semrush is handy when you need to quickly sort a large volume of potentially problematic links. Its "audit" angle helps to create an initial list of domains to check manually.

Beware of a classic trap. A high toxicity score is not proof. It is a signal for examination, not a verdict.

Majestic for trust and context

Majestic remains useful for its reading of the trust versus volume report. When a domain seems powerful but not credible in its link environment, Majestic often helps to spot the gap.

Useful shortcut: if two tools do not tell the same story about a domain, always do a manual check before classifying the link.

Build a usable master sheet

The most important step is not the export. It is the consolidation.

Create a spreadsheet with one row per link or, if you are working first by domain, one row per referring domain. Then add simple and readable columns:

• Source URL
• Referring domain
• Target page
• Anchor
• Link attribute (dofollow, nofollow, sponsored, UGC)
• Origin tool
• Available authority metrics
• Manual category (to keep, to monitor, to remove)
• Analyst comment

The analyst comment is often what is missing. Yet it is the column that avoids mistakes later. “Consistent local directory,” “former partner,” “unrelated blog,” “expired page,” “site seems abandoned,” this kind of note changes the quality of the decision.

Don’t forget lost links

Many companies only audit active links. This is insufficient. You also need to look at lost backlinks, especially if your organic traffic stagnates after a redesign, content removal, or a series of poorly managed redirects.

The “lost backlinks” or “broken backlinks” reports help identify:

• deleted pages that had good links
• unnecessary or broken redirects
• historical content that deserves to be restored
• brand mentions that no longer lead anywhere

To complement this work, it is also useful to look at how to know a site's traffic, especially to assess the relative credibility of certain referring domains and avoid overvaluing sites that seem powerful only on paper.

Analyze and evaluate the quality of your backlinks

Once the data is gathered, the real work begins. A backlink audit is not a metrics contest. It is a qualification exercise. You are looking to answer a simple question. Does this link improve your digital reputation, or does it muddle it?

In France, 68% of SME websites have a toxic backlink profile. Companies that conducted a complete audit and disavowed more than 40% of these toxic links saw their Authority Score increase by an average of 15 points in the following 6 months, according to data relayed by Dobuss on backlink audits. This finding explains why superficial audits are no longer sufficient. As long as you do not classify links with a coherent method, you do not know what deserves to be protected, monitored, or removed.

Don’t look at an isolated score

The first reflex of beginners is to sort a DR, AS, or Trust Flow column, then consider high scores as “good” and low scores as “bad.” That does not hold.

A solid domain can send a mediocre link if it publishes an off-topic page, overloaded with external links or visibly sold. Conversely, a small local site can send an excellent signal if it is credible, specialized, and contextually relevant.

What needs to be evaluated is the whole:

• the credibility of the domain
• the quality of the source page
• the relevance to your activity
• the type of anchor
• the targeted page
• the place of the link in the content

Thematic relevance often outweighs raw strength

For a French SME, a link from a site genuinely close to its sector often has more operational value than a “strong” link but out of context. An accounting firm cited on a serious HR blog, a decor shop mentioned in a credible home media, a craftsman featured by a well-maintained local site. These are readable signals.

When I examine a referring domain, I first look at whether a human would find this link normal. If the answer is no, it needs to be investigated.

Simple questions to ask for each link

• Does the site talk about a topic compatible with your business?
• Does the source page have a minimum of editorial substance?
• Is the link naturally integrated into the text?
• Does the target page really deserve this link?
• Does the anchor resemble a natural citation or an optimization attempt?

If you have to convince yourself that a link is “maybe not so bad,” it is often not good.

Anchor analysis quickly reveals excesses

Anchors remain an excellent detector of manipulation. A healthy profile contains a natural mix of brand, naked URLs, generic anchors, and varied editorial formulations. A fragile profile often shows excessive repetition of exact keywords on commercial pages.

This is not just a potential penalty issue. It is also a credibility issue. Too aggressive anchors tell an artificial story. Traditional engines see it. AI systems also perceive it through the overall inconsistency of the signal.

Here are the patterns that quickly alert me:

• Concentration on a single commercial expression
• Identical anchors spread across several weak domains
• Many links to the homepage while deep pages deserve to be cited
• English or generic anchors on a French local site without editorial logic

Backlink evaluation grid

Spotting toxic links without overreacting

The word “toxic” often leads to excess. Some teams want to disavow everything that seems weak. This is a mistake. A low-quality link is not always a harmful link. It is necessary to distinguish noise, the useless, and the genuinely problematic.

The cases that deserve serious vigilance are more concrete:

Links from networks or artificial patterns

When several domains share almost identical structures, the same fake author pages, the same recycled themes, and the same anchors, we are no longer in editorial randomness.

Blog comments and spammy profiles

These links rarely have real utility. Taken in isolation, they are sometimes ignored. Accumulated, they tarnish a profile and complicate analysis.

Directories without filters

Some local or sector directories remain legitimate. Many are just pages filled with worthless listings, created to host links.

Expired or diverted pages

An old domain may have been taken over and emptied of its editorial substance. The authority score sometimes retains a flattering appearance, while the reality of the site no longer justifies anything.

Classify each link into three groups

Do not remain vague. At the end of the analysis, each link or domain must fall into an operational category.

• To Keep
  Relevant, natural, useful link. It strengthens an important page and supports your reputation.

• To Monitor
  Not ideal link, but not problematic enough to act immediately. Keep it on a checklist.

• To Remove or Disavow
  Artificial, repetitive, off-topic link, or from a manifestly dubious environment.

For pages that carry the business, this qualification must be even stricter. A service sheet, an e-commerce category, or a local page does not need a large volume of links. It needs credible, understandable, defensible links. If you want to delve deeper into this point, the notion of quality backlink deserves to be treated as an editorial standard, not just a simple KPI.

Create your action plan for toxic links

Identifying a bad link does not solve anything. The value of a backlink audit appears when you turn the analysis into a clean, prioritized, and documented action plan.

The most common mistake is to send a disavow file too quickly. This reflex reassures, but it bypasses a more useful step. First, you should attempt to have the links that can be removed taken down. For micro-enterprises, 62% of link recoveries through a manual approach boost authority by 15-28% more than a simple disavow, according to Majestic FR data relayed by Major Flow. In short, outreach is not an administrative formality. It is often the best first response.

Prioritize before acting

Not all toxic links have the same importance. If you try to address the entire list at once, you waste time on secondary elements.

Start by crossing three criteria:

• the probable toxicity of the link
• the targeted page
• the business impact of this page

A series of dubious links to a service page, a priority category, or a profitable product sheet takes precedence over an old weak link pointing to a forgotten blog article.

Pragmatic prioritization

1. Critical level
   Artificial links to your converting pages or your strategic local pages.

2. Intermediate level
   Suspicious links to deep pages still indexed.

3. Low level
   Mediocre but isolated links, with no apparent real impact.

Practical rule: first clean what can distort the perception of your most important pages.

Start with manual removal

When a link is clearly bad, the best first action is often a removal request. This is especially true if the site still exists, publishes real content, and displays contact information.

Your goal is not to plead. You need to be simple, polite, and precise. A good message contains:

• the URL of the source page
• the targeted URL on your site
• the exact request
• a neutral tone

Example template:

Hello, We have identified a link to our site on this page: [Source URL].
Could you please remove this link pointing to [Target URL] during your next update?
Thank you in advance for your help.

Do not add unnecessary explanations. Do not accuse the webmaster. Do not write a novel about Google. You are seeking action, not a debate.

When to use disavow

The disavow file is used when manual removal is impossible, unrealistic, or insufficient. Typically:

• the site does not respond
• the domain seems abandoned
• the spam volume is significant
• the pattern is clearly manipulated
• the link environment is too bad to wait

Disavowing requires discipline. You do not put “average” domains in out of caution. You put in what you accept to explicitly renounce to Google. If you disavow too broadly, you may cut off neutral or sometimes useful signals.

A few simple rules:

• Work at the domain level when the problem is structural.
• Keep a record of the URLs and the reason for the disavow.
• Version your file in your internal documentation.
• Do not mix low doubt and proven spam.

A visual reminder can help before deploying the file.

What works and what does not

Clean audits follow a risk management logic. Sloppy audits follow an automatic sorting logic.

What works in practice:

• treat in coherent batches
• document each decision
• retest targeted pages after cleaning
• check lost valuable links before deleting everything

What works poorly:

• disavow based on a single score
• ignore editorial context
• clean without prioritizing business pages
• remove links simply because they are nofollow or weak

The goal is not to achieve a “perfect” profile on a tool. The goal is to obtain a defensible, credible, and useful profile for the engines that evaluate your authority.

Post-audit follow-up and sustainable link building strategies

Cleaning is never the end of the work. It is the beginning of a more mature management of the link profile. An SME that conducts a backlink audit only once and never revisits it often recreates the problem a few months later.

The most neglected point concerns the loss of links. In 2024, 72% of backlinks from French sites are lost annually without monitoring, causing an average drop of 18% in SERP positions, according to SE Ranking and its backlink analysis guide. This figure explains why some “cleaned” sites do not progress sustainably. They remove harmful links but let their good links disappear without monitoring.

Indicators to monitor after cleaning

Good monitoring is not complicated. It just needs to be regular and linked to specific pages.

Monitor primarily:

• the pages that have received or lost links
• the evolution of your positions on your key queries
• the organic traffic of business pages
• the changes in authority metrics in your tools
• the new referring domains
• the lost links on your important content

The bad reflex is to look only at an overall domain score. This score is useful as a thermometer. It does not explain alone why a category rises, why a local page drops, or why a product sheet ceases to be visible.

Reactivate lost valuable links

Not all lost links can be recovered, but many can be reworked. This is often the most profitable lever after an audit because it involves signals you had already earned.

Frequent cases to address:

Deleted old URL

A media or partner points to a page that no longer exists. If the topic remains relevant, restore the content or properly redirect to a very close page.

Too broad redirection

A linked old article has been redirected to the homepage. Technically, it “works.” Strategically, you lose the meaning of the link.

Unused brand mention

A site cites your business, but the link was lost during a redesign or editor change. A brief follow-up is sometimes enough to recover it.

The best backlinks to reclaim are often those you had already earned.

Shift from a cleaning logic to a healthy acquisition logic

Once the profile is cleaned, many businesses fall back into the old trap. They want to “climb quickly” and restart volume campaigns. This is exactly what to avoid.

Sustainable link building relies on a few simple principles.

• Publish truly citable pages
  A useful guide, a local resource, an expert service page, a solid FAQ. If the page does not provide anything, the link will be artificial or fragile.

• Work on thematic coherence
  The best links do not always come from the biggest sites. They come from the right contexts.

• Strengthen deep pages
  Links to the homepage are reassuring. Links to pages that answer questions and solve needs enhance visibility.

• Connect SEO and AI presence
  A link becomes more interesting when it points to a well-structured, clear, up-to-date page that is usable in a conversational environment.

The right rhythm for an SME

There is no need to turn your business into an outreach machine. However, it is necessary to establish a light and serious routine.

A sustainable rhythm often looks like this:

• monthly monitoring of new and lost links
• quarterly review of the overall profile
• specific control after redesign, migration, or content removal
• editorial check before any link building campaign

The difference between a fragile profile and a solid profile does not always come from the volume of links. It comes from continuity. Companies that keep an eye on their links better defend their reputation, protect their important pages, and build a more readable authority for both Google and AI response engines.

Frequently asked questions about backlink audits

Should you do the audit yourself or go through an agency?

It depends less on the budget than on the complexity of your profile. If your site is new, with few backlinks, an internal audit may suffice as long as you use multiple tools, document decisions, and perform manual checks.

As soon as there is a history of link building, a redesign, an e-commerce site with many pages, or a visibility drop that is hard to explain, the intervention of a consultant or agency often becomes more cost-effective. The real hidden cost of “do it yourself” is the sorting error. Deleting a good link or disavowing too broadly can cost more than a well-conducted audit.

How long does it take to see the effects of a cleanup?

You need to think in sequences, not in quick promises. Manual removal takes time. Disavow does not act like a switch. Google needs to reprocess the signals, and your overall profile needs to become more coherent again.

In practice, the first effects are often observed on the most sensitive pages first. The most visible gains generally appear after re-evaluation of the profile, resumption of indexing of the affected pages, and parallel improvement of the targeted content. If you clean the links but the targeted page remains weak, the benefit remains limited.

Does a high toxicity score mean the link should be removed?

No. A toxicity score serves as an alert, not a final judgment. It indicates that a link deserves a manual review. Some links appear suspicious to the tool but remain harmless. Others seem average and are actually part of a much more problematic artificial pattern.

It is also necessary to distinguish between two situations. A manual penalty is an explicit action communicated in Google Search Console. An algorithmic degradation will not send you any message. In both cases, the score alone is not enough. Context, repetition of patterns, domain quality, and the targeted page matter more than the red color displayed in a dashboard.

If you want to go beyond classic SEO cleaning and also measure your presence in AI search engines, Wispra allows you to track your visibility on ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI, while strengthening your overall digital presence with a GEO approach designed for French SMEs.