A link between two business websites carries a small promise. The words on the first page tell somebody what they will find, and the destination should keep that promise.
A broken link clearly fails. A link can also return a perfectly healthy page and still be wrong. It may lead to an old service, a general homepage instead of the promised information, or the right brand with no obvious next step. A cross-brand website link audit checks both parts: whether the link works and whether it still takes the reader somewhere useful.
This matters when a portfolio has a parent website and separate specialist sites. MightyGroupUK currently presents four live brands on its Our Brands page. The parent site explains how they fit together, while each brand website holds its specialist information. Links are the handover points between those roles.
A working URL can still be the wrong link
Automated testing can find obvious faults quickly. The W3C Link Checker documentation explains that its checker extracts links and anchors, tests whether they can be reached, includes page fragments and warns about redirects. It can also check part of a website recursively.
That is useful evidence, but it does not settle the editorial question. A redirect may end on a live page that no longer answers the original need. A generic homepage may load successfully after a detailed guide has moved. A contact link may reach the right organisation but the wrong form.
Treat the automated result as the first pass. It tells you where to look. A person still needs to follow the journey and decide whether the destination makes sense.
Set a useful boundary
Do not begin by trying to catalogue the whole internet. Start with links that move people between parts of the same portfolio or help them complete an important task.
- Links from the parent site to current brand websites.
- Links from brand websites back to parent information when that route is genuinely needed.
- Contact, support and enquiry links.
- Repeated links in navigation, footers and standard page sections.
- Links in current portfolio summaries, launch notes and status updates.
- Older articles that still send readers towards a service, project or contact route.
Detailed service-page maintenance should stay with the specialist brand. The parent-level audit records the journey between websites, identifies the owner and routes any content question to the right place. It should not become a back door for changing another brand’s claims.
Build a simple link inventory
A spreadsheet is enough for the first version. Give each link one row and record the information needed to make a decision.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Source page | The public page containing the link and the section where it appears. |
| Visible link text | The words a reader selects, plus any nearby text needed to understand them. |
| Expected task | What the reader reasonably expects to find or do after following the link. |
| Recorded URL | The address stored on the source page. |
| Final destination | The address reached after any redirects, with the page title and response result. |
| Editorial result | Whether the final page still matches the source wording, brand and expected task. |
| Action and owner | Keep, rewrite, replace, remove or investigate, followed by the person responsible. |
| Check date | The date tested and the change that should trigger another review. |
Keep login details, private links and recovery information out of this register. The audit needs public addresses and clear ownership, not credentials.
Run the technical pass
Use a link checker or a controlled crawl to collect links from the agreed pages. Test page fragments as well as complete addresses, and allow the tool to show the final destination after a redirect. Record enough detail to reproduce the result.
- Collect links from the source pages in scope.
- Test whether each address and fragment can be reached.
- Record redirects and the final address rather than stopping at the first response.
- Flag timeouts, access restrictions and inconsistent results for manual checking.
- Group repeated instances so one correction can be checked everywhere it appears.
A failed automated request does not always prove that a public page is unavailable. A site may restrict automated traffic or respond differently to a browser. Put uncertain results into a manual check queue instead of labelling them as broken without another test.
Follow the journey like a reader
Open the public source page and use the link in its real context. Do not rely only on copying the destination into a new browser tab. The surrounding heading, sentence and button text all shape the expectation.
Check the final page against a few plain questions:
- Does it belong to the brand named or implied on the source page?
- Does the page title and opening content match the link’s promise?
- Can the reader find the information or action they were sent there to use?
- If the destination describes an old project, is its historical status clear?
- Has a redirect dropped the reader on a general homepage with no route onwards?
A technically successful result can still need a rewrite. For example, a link labelled “contact the brand” is not doing its job if it opens a portfolio homepage and leaves the reader to search again.
Read the link text away from the page
The W3C explanation of WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 2.4.4 says that a link’s purpose should be clear from the link text alone or from that text together with its programmatically determined context, unless the purpose would be ambiguous to users generally. It also explains why meaningful link text helps people who use assistive technology to review a list of links or move from link to link.
Read the link text without relying on the page design. “Visit MightyDigitalStudioUK” gives a clearer destination than a repeated “learn more” link. If the destination starts a task, the wording should make the action clear. If it opens information, the page or subject name will often make good link text.
Check consistency too. Similar actions should use recognisable wording, while identical link text should not quietly point to different places. The MightyGroupUK shared terminology guide covers the same discipline for brand names, status words and repeated actions.
Choose a specific action
Finish each row with a decision. Keep the link when the wording and destination are both correct. Rewrite the link text when the page is right but the promise is vague. Replace the address when a more specific current page exists. Remove the link when the promised destination no longer exists and no honest replacement serves the same purpose.
Use “investigate” only when there is a named question and an owner. It is suitable when a redirect was unexpected, the current status is unclear or the specialist brand must confirm the destination. If nobody owns the question, name the person who will resolve it before closing the audit.
The GOV.UK guidance on writing effective links is written for government publishers, but its maintenance advice is useful more widely. It recommends linking to a specific page rather than a homepage, checking the destination and planning how the link will be maintained because content can change, break or redirect elsewhere.
Review links when the reason changes
A fixed review date can catch neglect, but event-based checks are more useful. Reopen the relevant links when a brand changes its public name or status, a service page moves, a new website replaces an old one, a contact route changes, or a project moves into history.
Connect the audit to content responsibility. The MightyGroupUK guide to clear website content ownership explains why a repeated fact needs an authoritative source and a person responsible for the update. The link register adds the route between those pages and shows which journeys need testing after the source changes.
Do not rewrite an accurate historical article merely because its link is old. First decide whether the reader needs a preserved archive, a note explaining the current position, a replacement destination or no link at all. History and current availability are different questions.
Verify the repaired journey
After an approved change, open the source page as a visitor and follow the link again. Confirm the final address, page title, brand context and next action. Check the same link in any repeated menu, footer or template where it appears.
Record the completed check, not just the requested edit. A content management screen can show the new address while a cached public page still serves the old one. The public journey is the evidence that matters.
Start with one route that matters
Begin with the parent portfolio page, its current brand destinations and the main contact route. That is a manageable first audit and it covers the links most likely to move a reader from general interest to the right specialist website.
Once those journeys have been checked, add current portfolio articles and repeated site-wide links. The register will grow from real decisions rather than a giant crawl nobody has time to review. Its purpose is simple: when somebody selects a link, the destination should still be the place the wording promised.
Sources and further reading
- MightyGroupUK: Our Brands, for the current parent-level portfolio structure.
- W3C: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.4, Link Purpose (In Context), for descriptive link purpose and context.
- W3C: Link Checker documentation, for automated checks of links, anchors, fragments and redirects.
- GOV.UK content and publishing guidance: Write effective links, for practical editorial and maintenance guidance.