Digital PR, and the editorial links it can earn.

Digital PR means producing material that a publication could genuinely cover, and that is credited with a link when it is. Google has no documentation on public relations, pitching or how journalists choose stories, so we will not attribute any of that to it. What Google does document is the boundary. Its spam policies define link spam as creating links to or from a site primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings.

That boundary shapes what a usable story is. It has a reason to be covered that exists without the link: a finding, a development, a view from someone qualified to give it. If the link is the only reason a placement exists, it is on the wrong side of the line.

The same policy names the practices to stay away from. They include buying or selling links for ranking purposes, sending someone a product in exchange for a write-up that includes a link, and links with optimised anchor text in articles, guest posts or press releases distributed on other sites. Editorial coverage that a publication chooses to write, and links to as it sees fit, is a different thing.

Whether a story is good enough for a particular publication is an editorial judgement. It is the publication's call, not something Google rules on.

The policies carry consequences. Google says sites that violate them may rank lower in results or not appear at all, and that violations are detected by automated systems and, as needed, human review that can result in a manual action. A campaign that depends on a prohibited practice puts the whole site at risk, not only the page that received the link.

Data and commentary are two common forms a story takes: an analysis that says something new, and expert comment on something already in the news. Google has no page on either as a link tactic. The nearest relevant source is its guidance on helpful content, which asks whether content provides original information, reporting, research or analysis, and insightful analysis beyond the obvious.

That guidance is written for pages on your own site. Applying it to data and commentary offered to a publication is our reading, not Google's, but the questions transfer well. Is there something here that is not already everywhere? Can the reader see where the figures came from? The guidance also asks whether it is clear who created content, and whether a byline leads to information about the author. For commentary, that is a fair test: who is speaking, and why should anyone trust them on this subject?

One more rule applies to anything that earns a link. The link is the publication's to place and to qualify. Google says that if a link was paid for in some way, it should be qualified with sponsored or nofollow. Paid coverage and earned coverage are different things, and they should be labelled as such.

Google's "how" question is relevant as well. It says that sharing how content was produced, for example how tests were conducted and what the results were, can build trust with readers. For data, that means a clear note of the method. For commentary, it means the evidence behind the opinion. Both make the source easier for a publication to credit, though the choice to link remains theirs.

Reactive work responds to something already happening. Planned work is prepared ahead of a date, a launch or a piece of research. The difference is timing and preparation, and Google's documentation says nothing about either. What it does cover is what comes after: seeing what has been found.

Search Console's Links report lists, for your own property, the top linked pages, the top linking sites and the most common link text. Two limits are stated on the help page. The report includes links Google has found over time, which may since have been removed, and it does not say whether a link is marked nofollow. It shows what Google has found, not a complete record and not a verdict on value.

Promotion can also be overdone. The SEO Starter Guide warns that people may tire of repeated promotion, and that search engines may see some practices as manipulation of results. A campaign built around coverage people want to read sits more comfortably with that than one built around volume.

Anchor text deserves a note. Google's link guidance says good anchor text is descriptive, reasonably concise and relevant to the pages at each end. On earned coverage the wording is the publication's choice. In our view that is a reason not to ask for particular wording, and Google lists optimised anchor text in distributed press releases as link spam.