rank.fast

The pilot protocol: how we'll measure our own guest post purchases

● published before the first purchase, deliberately

We're about to start buying guest post placements from our own curated marketplace shelf, pointed at this website, to measure how the product performs before any customer can buy it. This post is the measurement protocol, published before the first order, so that when the results appear you can check them against rules that existed in advance. If we have to change anything, it goes in the changelog at the bottom, dated, with the reason.

Why publish first? Because results-first studies get to quietly choose what to measure after seeing the data. Committing now means a failed placement is as much a finding as a successful one. In an industry where every seller reports 100% success, our failures may end up the most useful numbers we publish.

What we're buying

Ten to twelve guest post placements (a new article containing one dofollow link, written by us, approved by our reviewer) on sites from our vetted shelf, concentrated in the DR 40 to 60 range, across at least two niches, all pointing at pages on rank.fast. Suppliers are not named, per our standing policy; every placement's measured outcome is published, per the same policy.

The two evidence streams, kept separate

What we record per purchase, at order time

What we'll conclude, and what we won't

The pilot's conclusions will be of the class "this placement was delivered, indexed in N days, and survived to its checkpoints": delivery rate, time-to-live, time-to-indexed, and stickiness, with the full per-placement table published.

What we will not claim: that any placement caused a ranking change. Ten links pointing at a site that is simultaneously publishing content, rewriting pages, and growing cannot support causal attribution, and we won't pretend otherwise. Stream B movements will be reported as labeled observations, nothing more. Anyone who tells you their twelve-link study proved a ranking effect is telling you about their marketing, not their measurement.

What would count as failure

We're stating the bad outcomes in advance: placements that never go live, links delivered nofollow or with altered anchors, host pages that never enter Google's index or drop out by a checkpoint, and sites that take the money and vanish. Every one of these, if it happens, appears in the published table with the same prominence as the successes. The failure rate is the number our future guarantee gets priced on, so we have no incentive to hide it and every incentive to know it precisely.

When

Orders begin when the pilot budget is committed; results publish as they accrue on the live log and in a full writeup when the 30-day checkpoints complete. Pricing and any guarantee for the marketplace publish only after that writeup, built on these numbers.

Where the results will live

Every placement gets a row in a public, machine-readable log at /data/pilot-log.json: anonymized id, order timestamp, DR band and quality grade, niche, target page, the order-time baseline, the exact date it was delivered, the exact date it entered Google's index, and its 30/90-day checkpoint results. Auditable end to end without identifying any host site or supplier.

Changelog

2026-08-24: added the public per-placement log format at /data/pilot-log.json, following external review feedback that order-time baselines and exact indexed dates should be prominent and auditable. No purchases made yet.

2026-08-23: protocol published. No purchases made yet.