A useful report allows another person to verify delivery without asking the operator for context. It should capture both the public result and the decisions behind it.
Core placement fields
Record the placement URL, forum or community, thread topic, target page, anchor, link attributes, format, publication date and current status.
A quality review starts with the real context rather than a domain metric: who reads the thread, how recent the replies are, whether useful references are allowed, and whether the target page answers the question. Metrics can help sort candidates, but they do not replace manual review.
Use clear status definitions
Separate researched, approved, drafted, submitted, live, rejected, removed and replaced. A single “done” column hides where work actually stands.
Record the decision before publishing: the community, thread, intended format, target page, anchor, and the reason the reference helps a reader. This makes review easier and prevents the campaign from becoming a collection of disconnected placements.
Keep the report current
Reports lose value when links are checked only once. Set recheck dates during the replacement period and preserve notes about edits or moderation.
After publishing, verify more than the presence of the link. A moderator may edit the contribution, a thread may close, or the target page may move. The campaign report should show the current state, not only the fact that the placement once went live.
Practical checklist
- Use one row per placement
- Define every status
- Include target and anchor data
- Schedule status rechecks
Next step: map these recommendations to your target pages, then request a manual placement plan without relying on ranking or indexing promises.