First published: 6 November 2023 on Finn McCool Marketing. Substantially revised: 17 October 2026 to explain the risks more clearly and remove commercial link-building promotions.

Tiered link building means arranging links in layers. A first layer links directly to your website; a second layer links to those pages; further layers link to the layers above them. It is often sold as a way to make the direct links to your site appear stronger.

The structure is straightforward. The important question is why the links exist and how they were obtained. Calling something “tier two” does not make a paid or automated ranking scheme safe.

What the tiers mean

Your website: the destination the campaign is intended to benefit.
Tier one: other pages that link directly to your website.
Tier two: pages linking to those tier-one pages.
Tier three: pages linking to the tier-two pages, and so on.

In a simplified chain, the links run like this: tier three → tier two → tier one → your website. The labels describe a relationship between pages. They are not Google quality grades, and they do not tell you whether a link has editorial value.

Natural chains of links and manufactured schemes

Suppose a local newspaper writes about a business and links to its website. A community organisation then links to the newspaper’s article because it is useful to its readers. That creates a chain without anyone needing to buy a “tiered link package”.

Compare that with a supplier placing a paid article, then using hundreds of low-quality sites, automated comments or fabricated pages to point links at it. The layers may be described in the same vocabulary, but the purpose and methods are different.

Google’s link-spam policy covers links created primarily to manipulate rankings. Its examples include paid ranking links, automated link creation, low-quality directories and low-value content made for linking signals. Advertising and sponsorship can be legitimate when the links are appropriately qualified, such as with rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow".

My interpretation of that policy is simple: adding another layer does not turn a manipulative method into an editorial recommendation. A supplier should be able to explain the actual placements and methods, not just draw a pyramid.

Claims that deserve closer questioning

“The lower tiers cannot hurt you”

There is no sensible basis for treating distance from your website as a universal guarantee. Even when a link has no effect, you may still have paid for work that creates no useful audience, enquiry or business value. A higher layer does not make the lower layers good quality.

“We will increase your authority score”

DA and DR are metrics produced by third-party tools. Increasing one is not the same as earning useful visibility, relevant visitors or sales. Ask why that metric matters to your business and what the supplier will actually do to move it.

“Google cannot tell which links are paid”

That is a sales claim about detection, not evidence that the method meets policy or is a worthwhile use of your budget. The question is whether the proposed work can be justified openly, including how placements are arranged and paid for.

“We only build a safe number each month”

A schedule or link count does not establish quality. Ten irrelevant placements are still irrelevant. Ask about the readers, subject, editorial process and purpose of each placement rather than accepting a monthly quantity as a strategy.

Questions to ask before buying link-building work

Where will the links appear? Ask for representative examples and a record of final placements.
Why would that page help a real reader? There should be a reason beyond passing a score to another page.
Who controls publication? Clarify whether an independent editor chooses the coverage or the supplier controls a network of sites.
What is paid for? Separate research and outreach fees from payment for a link or placement. Ask how paid links are disclosed and qualified.
Is anything automated? Ask directly about bulk comments, profiles, directories and generated pages in every tier.
What will the reporting show? Look for relevant coverage and useful outcomes, not just a chart of link counts or third-party scores.
What happens when work stops? Find out whether placements are rented, what can be removed and who retains the records.

A supplier refusing to explain the lower tiers while calling the top tier “premium” has not answered the question. You should be able to understand what you are paying for without becoming a link-analysis specialist.

If you have already bought a package

Start by collecting the agreement, placement list, reports and any messages describing the methods. Stop commissioning work you do not understand while you review it. Check Search Console for a manual action, but remember that the absence of one does not prove every link is useful or compliant.

Do not upload a large disavow file simply because a third-party tool labels links “toxic”. Google describes disavowing links as an advanced step that most sites do not need and warns that incorrect use can harm performance. Its criteria concern substantial artificial links and a manual action, or a likely one. Get an informed review of your actual situation before using that tool.

A more useful brief for earning attention

Start with what a relevant audience would find worth reading or referring to: original expertise, a useful local resource, a clear explanation, meaningful research or a real business story. Make the destination useful when people arrive. Then consider who would reasonably want to know about it.

This takes judgement, and it does not guarantee coverage or rankings. It does give you a clearer way to assess the work: is it reaching suitable people with something worth sharing, or mainly manufacturing a pattern for a reporting tool?

For a wider explanation of the labels agencies use, read white hat, grey hat and black hat SEO.

For definitions of authority scores and other terms, use the plain-English digital marketing jargon guide. You can also browse all Insights.