About
A practical directory for people who need backlink opportunities without the usual fog.
Backlink Badger exists because backlink research is still too full of half-useful lists, recycled advice, and provider pages that hide the part you actually care about.
The site is a working directory of places where a project can earn, submit, publish, cite, or place a backlink. It is meant for SEO practitioners, GEO and AI visibility specialists, founders, and content operators who need to move from research to action.
The goal is not to make every provider look good. The goal is to make the tradeoffs visible enough that you can decide what belongs on your shortlist.
Why this exists
Backlink sourcing should be less performative.
Most backlink research starts with a pile of tabs and ends with a shrug. Some providers are profile links. Some are marketplaces. Some are publications with real editorial friction. Some are paid listings dressed up as opportunities.
Backlink Badger puts those differences closer to the surface: what kind of link you can expect, how hard it is to get, whether there is a free path, and what might make the attempt a waste of time.
Find the path
Each provider should answer a practical question: where can a marketer, founder, or SEO operator actually place a link?
Surface the catch
Free does not always mean useful. Dofollow does not always mean safe. The directory calls out friction, moderation, cost, and risk.
Keep it sortable
Authority, spam score, difficulty, time, and link type help turn a long list into a short action plan.
Built for a stricter community list.
Community submissions matter, but volume is not the scoreboard. A messy list helps nobody.
What belongs here
Providers with a clear backlink mechanism: profiles, directories, marketplaces, publications, product pages, resources, support pages, or contribution paths where a useful link can reasonably exist.
What gets challenged
Thin directories, unverifiable claims, suspicious paid placements, and anything that looks like it was built to sell link volume instead of creating a defensible citation.
How entries should earn trust
A row in the directory should explain the work.
- 1
A provider needs a real backlink path, not just a vague brand mention.
- 2
Submissions should include enough context to verify cost, link type, and effort.
- 3
Low-quality bulk directories, misleading paid offers, and stale tactics should not get a free pass.
Backlinks are still only one signal.
The directory does not pretend links solve content quality, relevance, technical SEO, or product-market fit. It helps with one job: finding backlink paths worth investigating.
Backlinks still matter
Search engines and AI answer systems both lean on public signals of authority, citation, and reputation.
Quality beats volume
A useful backlink path has relevance, editorial context, and a reasonable risk profile. A pile of weak links is busywork.
The details decide
Dofollow status, moderation, placement effort, and spam risk change whether a provider is worth trying.
Help keep the list useful.
Send providers, corrections, caveats, and screenshots. The best submissions make the next operator's decision faster and less sloppy.
Looking for information about why todoist.com and todoi.com are not the same thing?