People also ask
In practice
The floor’s checks are necessary but not sufficient, and the gap between passing and fitting is where judgement lives. The cases that surface it: the authoritative publication whose audience skews enterprise while the client sells to SMBs — a technically perfect placement that reaches the wrong buyers. The category-adjacent site whose editorial slant contradicts the client’s positioning (a publication sceptical of AI tools reviewing an AI product). The roundup where the client would sit next to a competitor they’re litigating against.
The publisher whose standards are high and whose recent direction has shifted — passing the checks on last quarter’s evidence while this quarter’s direction makes the placement a bet. The judgement is exercised with a discipline that keeps it honest: the reasons are recorded in the qualification log (a verdict without a reason teaches nothing), the pattern of rejections is reviewed (a screener rejecting too much is applying taste where the floor applies standards), and borderline cases route to the client’s approval pack rather than a unilateral no — the client may know something the screener doesn’t.
The counter-case is equally judgemental: the site that fails one soft check and is manifestly right (the young niche publication at DR 38 with the category’s most engaged audience) — worth an explicit, recorded exception. This is the layer of qualification that no tool automates and every experienced screener carries: the metrics say whether a site is safe; judgement says whether it’s right.
See also: Publisher vetting checklist, Editorial independence, Site-level vs page-level qualification.
Related service: Link building strategy.
