An editorial link is a link that a publisher adds because they decided it belongs there, not because anyone paid, traded or asked for it. A journalist who cites a company's survey in a news story and links to the survey page has given an editorial link. So has a blogger who links to a tool they use and recommend, without being contacted.

Wikipedia's definition is the one most SEOs work from: editorial links are "links not acquired by paying money, asking, trading or exchanging," and are "naturally given by other website owners" [1]. The idea sits at the heart of how links work as a ranking signal. A backlink is meant to be a favorable "editorial vote" from one page for another [2], and a vote only means something if the voter chose it freely.

Editorial links matter because they are the kind of link Google's link-based ranking was built to count. PageRank, the system Larry Page and Sergey Brin developed at Stanford in 1996, treats a link as a recommendation and passes value along it [6]. That model only works when links reflect real judgment.

Google's spam policies are written around the same idea from the other side. Google defines link spam as "the practice of creating links to or from a site primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings" [3]. An editorial link is, by definition, not created for that purpose, which is why it is the safest and most durable type of link a site can have.

No. An editorial link describes why a link exists, while a followed (dofollow) link describes how the link is coded. The two are independent:

Followed linkNofollow, sponsored or ugc link
EditorialA journalist cites your study with a plain linkA news site that marks all outbound links nofollow cites your study
Not editorialA paid placement with no rel value (breaks Google's policy)A paid placement correctly marked sponsored

Many large publishers add nofollow to every outbound link as a site-wide rule. A link from such a site can be fully editorial and still be nofollow. In the other direction, a link with no rel value is not editorial just because it is followed.

The difference between an editorial link and a paid link is whether anything was exchanged for it. Google's spam policies list "exchanging money for links," "exchanging goods or services for links," and "sending someone a product in exchange for them writing about it and including a link" as link spam when the link passes ranking credit [3]. Google also accepts that buying links for advertising is "a normal part of the economy of the web," as long as those links carry rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow" [3][5].

That makes the editorial label a claim about the process, not about how the page looks. A paid link placed inside a well-written article, on a real site, in a relevant paragraph, can look exactly like an editorial link. Nothing in the HTML shows which is which.

"Editorial" is the quality standard nearly every link vendor claims, because it is the standard Google rewards. In link-building sales copy, the word is often used to mean something narrower: a link placed in the body of an article, written in a natural tone, on a site with real content. Those are features of a contextual link, not proof that a link was editorially given.

Search Insider's position is simple: if a link was bought, swapped or placed on request, it is not an editorial link in Google's sense, however well it is written. Calling a paid placement "editorial" does not change how Google's link spam policy applies to it [3]. Buyers should treat the word in a sales pitch as a description of placement style, then judge the link on what it actually is.

To tell if a link is editorial, ask one question: would this link exist if nobody had asked for it? If the honest answer is yes, the link is editorial. If the link appeared only because of a payment, trade, pitch fee or a request to a site that sells placements, it is not.

Practical checks that point toward a genuinely editorial link:

  • The page has a purpose of its own. The article exists to inform its readers, and the link supports a specific point in it, such as a cited statistic or a recommended tool.
  • The site links out sparingly and selectively. A site whose articles each carry several unrelated commercial links is selling them. See outbound link ratio.
  • The anchor text is what a writer would naturally use. Editors link brand names, page titles and plain descriptions. Keyword-rich anchors pointing at commercial pages are a common sign of a placed link.
  • No "write for us" or "sponsored post" pricing sits behind it. A site that advertises link placements has no editorial filter on those links.

These checks raise or lower confidence. None of them proves intent, because the decision to link happens off the page.

Yes. You can build editorial links on purpose by creating something worth citing and putting it in front of people who write about the topic, as long as you do not pay or trade for the link itself. Digital PR, original research, data studies and useful tools all aim at editorial links: a journalist receives a pitch, decides the story is worth covering, and chooses to link to the source.

Asking is the gray area in the Wikipedia definition, which excludes links acquired by "asking" [1]. In practice, Google's spam policies do not prohibit outreach. They target links exchanged for value [3]. A pitch that offers a story or data is different from a request that offers money or a reciprocal link. Search Insider treats a link as editorial when the publisher had a real choice and nothing of value changed hands for the link.

Google's own advice points at the same approach. Its SEO Starter Guide notes that links "can provide more context on a topic, both for users and search engines" [8], which is the reason writers add editorial links in the first place: the link makes their own page better.

Google has always valued editorially given links, and its changes over time have been about removing the value of links that only imitate them. The main steps came in 2005, 2012 and 2016.

1996 to 1998: links as votes

PageRank was developed in 1996 and described in a 1998 paper by Brin and Page [6]. It treated each link as a vote, which assumed links were placed editorially.

2005: nofollow separates endorsement from mention

Google introduced nofollow in 2005 to fight comment spam [6]. For the first time, a link could appear on a page without counting as the page's endorsement. See nofollow link for the full history.

2007: paid links targeted

Google began penalizing sites that sell links in December 2007 [6], making the distinction between editorial and paid links a matter of policy rather than just theory.

2012: Penguin

Google launched the Penguin update on April 24, 2012, aimed at link schemes and manipulative links, affecting about 3.1% of queries [7]. Sites relying on manufactured links lost rankings, and links that looked editorial but were not became a liability.

2016: Penguin joins the core algorithm

On September 23, 2016, Penguin became part of Google's core algorithm and began running in real time [7]. Google's systems now evaluate link patterns continuously rather than in periodic sweeps.

Treat editorial links as the benchmark for every link you pursue. Earn them through content and coverage, keep the pages they point to live and accurate, and when you acquire any link that is not editorial, mark it honestly with rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow" [5].

Google also recommends that site owners link out editorially themselves: "linking to other sites isn't something to be scared of," and citing sources "can help establish trustworthiness" [4]. A site that gives editorial links freely is behaving the way Google's link model expects.