Content Repurposing Backlink Data: 500 Domains and the Method Behind the Counts

If you are comparing content-repurposing tools, a raw backlink number is not enough. This page provides the working domain-level dataset behind Repostit’s analysis of 500 domains reported by Bing Webmaster Tools as linking to Repurpose.io, together with the rules used to decide which domains were worth a legitimate review.

Download the sanitized 500-domain CSV dataset. It contains one row per domain, the competitor link count reported in the export, the qualification bucket, a short qualification note and the export date. It does not contain private contact data, guessed source URLs or credentials.

What the dataset actually measures

The unit of analysis is a referring domain, not an individual hyperlink. Bing’s Similar Sites export reported 500 unique domains with a non-zero Repurpose.io count on August 22, 2026. The domain-level file contains 9,062 reported links in total, but that sum must not be read as 9,062 independent editorial endorsements.

The source context is the Bing Webmaster Tools Backlinks documentation, while the quality boundary follows Google’s link-spam policy and its people-first content guidance. Those sources do not validate every row in this file; they explain why the file is presented as a research snapshot rather than a promise of ranking value.

A platform page, feed, archive, footer, pagination system or syndicated copy can create many links from one relationship. That is why the dataset keeps the reported count separate from the qualification decision. A domain with 1,455 reported links may be a useful clue, but it is not automatically a better prospect than a relevant article with one contextual link.

The companion 500-domain backlink study explains the original research in narrative form. This page is the shorter reference point for anyone who needs the file, the definitions or the limitations.

The 500 domains by current qualification bucket

The current export is divided into five operational buckets. These are research states, not promises that a domain will publish a Repostit link.

The first two buckets are not 452 guaranteed opportunities. They are queues for manual qualification. The last three buckets prevent the most common mistake in competitor research: treating every row in an SEO export as an outreach target.

Why high counts can be misleading

The export included 19 domains with at least 100 reported links and 70 with between 10 and 99. The remaining domains had fewer than ten reported links. That distribution is useful for prioritizing inspection, but it does not establish link quality, page relevance, or the reason a link exists.

Consider the questions a reviewer still has to answer:

• Is there a public page where the link is visible?
• Is the page editorial, a profile, a partner page, a podcast record, a feed, or a repeated template?
• Does the page serve the same audience and job-to-be-done as Repostit?
• Is there a legitimate free or editorial route, or only a paid placement, reciprocal badge or login wall?
• Would adding Repostit help the reader, even if the publisher never follows a suggested anchor or wording?

Until those questions are answered, the row is evidence for research rather than a backlink.

The qualification method

Each domain was assessed using the same sequence. The process is deliberately conservative because an outbound message, a pending form and a public link are different events.

1. Normalize the domain

Subdomains, protocol variants and duplicate export rows were normalized so the working file contains one row per domain. The original competitor count is preserved as an observation, not converted into a claim about unique pages.

2. Look for the public source page

The reviewer searches for a precise page, author or organization. If no public source page can be found, the row remains unresolved. We do not invent a source URL from a search snippet, and we do not treat a missing result as proof that a link disappeared.

3. Identify the relationship

The reason behind the link matters. A first-hand workflow article, independent comparison, partner integration, creator profile, directory listing, podcast episode, feed or sitewide template each has a different editorial meaning. A large platform count may point to the real creator or publisher rather than being a clean route itself.

4. Test product fit

Repostit distributes approved finished short-form videos through supported social routes. It is not a transcription tool, generic AI clip generator, content calendar or universal publishing destination. A prospect is useful only when the page’s reader could reasonably benefit from that workflow.

5. Check the route and quality

We keep free, human-reviewed profiles and independent editorial routes separate from paid ranking placements, guaranteed do-follow incentives, link exchanges, automated submissions and security-blocked forms. A clean route can still remain pending until a public page visibly contains the link.

The content repurposing workflow guide describes the product job more precisely. The automatic video reposting guide covers the operational checks that should happen before scaling a distribution workflow.

What is not in the file

The CSV is intentionally narrower than a commercial backlink export. It does not claim to provide:

• the exact source URL for every domain;
• the exact Repostit target URL, anchor text or link attributes;
• a complete historical new/lost-link series;
• independent verification of every link reported by Bing;
• traffic, referral conversions, trial starts or activated users;
• permission to contact a publisher or submit a profile.

That limitation is important for anyone using the dataset in an article or analysis. The file is a transparent discovery and qualification aid, not a license to reproduce a competitor’s link profile mechanically. The Repostit alternative comparison covers buyer-facing product differences separately from this research asset.

How to cite or reuse the data

If you use the dataset in your own research, cite the target page and retain the export date: August 22, 2026. A fair summary would say that Repostit reviewed a domain-level sample of 500 domains reported by Bing as linking to Repurpose.io, then classified those domains for manual qualification. It would not say that all 500 were editorial backlinks or that the reported counts equal independent recommendations.

The classification can change when a source page, route or public listing changes. Corrections should include the public evidence and the domain concerned. Repostit can update the file with a new date rather than silently rewriting the historical snapshot.

How to read the CSV columns

The domain column is the normalized referring domain from the export. repurpose_reported_link_count is Bing’s observed count for that domain at export time; it is not a count of pages that a reviewer independently verified. classification is the current queue state used for manual work, while qualification_note explains why the row was placed there. export_date keeps the snapshot anchored to August 22, 2026.

This structure is intentionally simple enough to inspect in a spreadsheet or a text editor. It also makes the file safe to quote: a writer can identify the sample, reproduce the bucket totals and see exactly where the data stops. If a later review finds a different source page or a better route, that evidence should be added as a dated update rather than silently changing the original observation.

A reader should not join this file to Repostit’s private outreach ledger. The public CSV contains only the competitor-domain observation and the qualification note. It does not show whether a publisher was contacted, whether a form was accepted, whether a reply arrived or whether a Repostit link is live. Those funnel stages belong to internal operations and must remain separate from the published evidence.

What this means for ethical link building

The fastest way to damage a small SaaS site is to treat a competitor export as a mass-submission list. That creates duplicate contact, irrelevant directory profiles, paid-link pressure and a ledger full of “sent” actions that never become public citations.

A better operating sequence is small and auditable:

1. resolve the page and the relationship;
2. decide whether the reader would benefit from Repostit;
3. prepare a factual contribution or a reproducible product test;
4. contact the accountable publisher only when a legitimate route exists;
5. record the outcome as researched, sent, submitted, pending or live;
6. count a backlink only after a public third-party page visibly links to Repostit.

This is also why a lower number of verified referring domains can be healthier than a larger number made of sitewide duplicates, paid placements or unresolved tool reports. Authority is built through useful relationships and evidence, not by copying a dashboard total.

Dataset notes

• Source: Bing Webmaster Tools Similar Sites export for repurpose.io
• Export date: August 22, 2026
• Sample: 500 unique non-zero competitor domains
• File scope: domain-level observations and qualification buckets only
• Review status: current as of September 18, 2026; individual routes can change
• Owner: Repostit, with commercial affiliation disclosed
• Correction route: support@repostit.io with a public source-page reference

The dataset is meant to be useful because its boundaries are visible. Use it to ask better questions about competitor authority, not to manufacture 500 links.

You can test the underlying workflow with Repostit using one approved short-form video and one supported publishing route, then measure the real result instead of assuming that distribution occurred.