Home / Knowledge Base / Straight answers / Network Footprint: Why Donors Link Not Only to You

Network Footprint: Why Donors Link Not Only to You

Straight answers 2 min read Updated 12.09.2026
If all platforms link to one site, it is evident from open data — the objection is valid. Let's analyze what a footprint is, why it differs for public platforms, and where our weak points are.

The objection sounds like this: "If all donors link only to one site, it is evident even from open data about links." The objection is valid — and that is why the cascade is built on public platforms, not on our own network.

What is a Network Footprint

A footprint is a set of matches by which a group of sites can be identified as one source: a common domain owner, one hosting and subnet, identical templates, identical pages, a similar scheme of outgoing links, matching registration dates. A classic network for a client has many matches, and upon detection, the entire network is devalued.

Why Public Platforms Have a Different Footprint

FeatureClient NetworkPublic Platform
Who else publishes on the domainOnly clients of the networkThousands of external authors daily
Outgoing links of the domainLead to client projectsLead anywhere, our links are a fraction of a percent
Age and historyDrop with restored contentYears of the service's own history
Consequences of detectionDevaluation of all links at onceDevaluation concerns the platform, not "our network"

Where a Footprint May Still Appear for Us

We honestly list our weak points:

  • Uniformity on the client side. If all publications lead to one page with one anchor, the pattern is visible regardless of the platforms. This is remedied by an anchor plan and distribution across pages.
  • Repetition of platforms. Therefore, within the launch, there is a limit on publications for one platform, and the pool is constantly expanding.
  • One publisher under different brands. We identified a case in the pool where three "different" platforms turned out to be one platform under three brands — recognized by the paths to the resource pages. Such cases are considered one platform, not three.
  • Second level on the same platform. A link from the second level leading to a first-level publication on the same domain is useless — it is an internal link, not an external one. Such combinations are excluded from planning.
How to Check This Yourself
Take the address of any of our publications and look at the domain profile of the platform in any link service: theme, volume of outgoing links, number of referring domains. You will see a large public service, not a shell for links.

Diversity as Part of the Product

The pool is consciously kept multilingual and geographically diverse: Japanese, Taiwanese, Czech, French, American services. This gives a profile that does not look like "forty links from one farm," and at the same time reduces dependence on the policies of any one platform. The composition of the pool and selection principles are in the article "How We Select Platforms".

FAQ

Is it obvious that the links are made by one service?
By the platforms themselves — no: these are large public services with thousands of external authors. The pattern is more often created by the uniformity of anchors and target pages on the client side.
Do you publish several publications on one platform?
Within the launch, there is a limit on repetitions for one platform, so the cascade is distributed across the pool, not concentrated on a couple of domains.
Are platforms of one publisher considered different?
No. We found one platform in the pool under three brands and consider such cases as one platform.
Try it on your project Everything described in the article is available in the dashboard — the registration bonus is already in your balance.
Open dashboard
Was this article helpful? Thank you! We will consider this in future updates.