I've been sorting through a list of websites for outreach and got stuck on something. A few of them have really strong authority metrics, but they're only loosely connected to my niche. Then I found a couple of smaller blogs that are much more relevant to what I do, even though their numbers aren't nearly as impressive. Last year I picked the bigger sites almost every time, but the results weren't as noticeable as I expected. For those of you who've been doing this for a while, which factor has made a bigger difference in the long run?

From what I've seen, relevance usually wins if I have to choose between the two. A link from a site where the audience actually cares about the same subject has brought me more engaged visitors than a stronger domain that covers random topics. I still look at authority because it matters, but I don't treat it as the only metric anymore. I came across https://essentras.com/link-building-usa while comparing different approaches, and it matched a lot of what I've experienced in practice. These days I try to find websites that have both decent authority and a natural connection to my niche instead of chasing the biggest numbers. It takes longer, but the links seem to hold their value better and the traffic is much more useful.

One thing I've noticed after working on a few different websites is that patience usually pays off more than trying to rush results. Small improvements made consistently often end up outperforming quick wins, regardless of the strategy someone starts with. Keeping track of what actually changes over several months has been much more helpful for me than relying on first impressions.