Camping Write For Us

Camping produced the smallest candidate pool of the four verticals in this batch and the highest share of them clearing our authority floor. The sites are small, independent and easy to read in a minute, which makes this one of the few lists where checking each one yourself is genuinely quick.

How this list was built

The footprint ran across camping, campsite, tent camping, camping gear, RV camping and caravan. Once platforms and competitor listicles were removed, 71 candidate domains were left to check.

31 verified. The 40 failures split into 19 blocked, 14 off-topic, 4 unreachable and 3 selling placements.

Seventeen of the thirty-one cleared Open PageRank 2, which is the best conversion from verified to publishable that we have measured. Small camping blogs carry more public authority than their size suggests, largely because outdoor gear reviews get linked to.

The hand review removed seven: two general news sites that keep a camping guest post page, an offroad vehicle association, a retailer whose guides are about hunting, a site whose own title renders as an unfilled template variable, a hiking site that belongs on the hiking list, and one page carrying no camping vocabulary at all.

Camping sites accepting guest posts

Ten sites, sorted by Open PageRank. Read the guidelines before writing: several of these ask for photographs from the trip you are describing.

This list runs from an outdoor gear rental company through a campsite booking site to two association blogs and a family camping publication. They want different things, and the association pages in particular expect you to be a member of the community rather than a visitor to it.

The requirement almost every camping page states

Read the ten submission pages and one condition appears on most of them: original photographs. Not stock, not the manufacturer's product shots, photographs you took.

This is a harder gate than it sounds and it is the reason camping has fewer contributed posts than its authority scores would predict. A writer who has never pitched a tent cannot satisfy it, and editors in this vertical can tell within one image.

It is also an opportunity if you have the photographs. Most pitches these editors receive are gear roundups assembled from Amazon listings, so a trip report with your own images clears the bar that almost everything else fails at. That is the difference between a placement that stays up and one that quietly disappears, which we go into in relevant backlinks.

What changes when the publisher is one person

Most sites on this list are run by one or two people who camp. There is no editorial desk, no submissions queue and no obligation to reply, and that changes what a good pitch looks like.

The email that works is short, names something specific they published, and proposes one idea rather than three. An owner-operator reading on a phone will decide in about fifteen seconds, and a long email with a menu of options reads as work.

The email that fails is the one addressed to nobody. Our own sending data says the greeting is where most outreach gives itself away, and on a site run by a named person that is fatal. The subject line guide covers the part that decides whether any of it gets read.

What an authority score means on a small site

Camping converted from verified to publishable better than any vertical we have run: seventeen of thirty-one cleared Open PageRank 2. That is worth explaining, because it is not a sign that camping blogs are large.

Outdoor gear gets linked to. A tent review from 2019 that ranks well collects links from forums, retailers and other blogs for years, and public authority scores reward exactly that. So a one-person camping site can carry a score that a much bigger publication in another vertical would not.

The number is therefore a poor guide to how many people will read your piece. It tells you the site has been around and has been referenced. It says nothing about whether anyone is reading it now, which is the only thing that decides whether a placement does anything for you.

The check takes two minutes and no tool does it for you. Open the five most recent posts, look at the dates, look for a named author rather than an admin account, and look for any sign a reader has been there. A site publishing monthly with a real byline beats a dormant one at a higher score every time, and no outreach tool will make that call for you.

Camping publishing is seasonal and outreach should be too

Camping sites publish against a season in a way that most verticals do not, and pitching against that calendar rather than into it wastes the effort.

Editors here are commissioning ahead. A piece about winter camping arrives useful in autumn and useless in February, and gear content is planned around the spring buying period rather than the summer using one. A pitch that lands three months early reads as organised. The same pitch in season reads as late.

There is a quieter benefit to the off-season. These are small publications run by people who camp, and in July they are camping. A well-judged email in November has far less competing with it, which matters more here than a better subject line would.

How many of these ten to pitch

Ten is small enough that the instinct is to email all of them this afternoon. The reason not to is practical rather than a point about manners.

Almost every page on this list asks for original work and several ask for original photographs, which rules out the volume tactics behind link insertions entirely. So a batch send means either ten different articles, which nobody writes, or one article sent ten times, which is the thing every editor here is filtering for. They talk to each other, and this is a small community.

Four properly is the better shape. Pick the four whose readers overlap yours, read what each published recently, and write four genuinely different notes. That is a morning rather than ten minutes, and the reply rate makes the arithmetic work.

Sequencing helps too. The first rejection usually tells you something about the framing, and applying it before the next three costs nothing. Sending everything at once throws that away.

The nineteen pages we could not read

Nineteen camping candidates answered our request with a bot challenge instead of a page. They are absent from the table and the reason is worth stating plainly.

We could not read the page, which is the entire claim. Some of those sites take contributions and belong on this list, and we will not add them on the strength of a guess. That is the difference between a checked list and a copied one.

Bot protection is rarely an editorial decision. It usually comes from a hosting default or a security plugin, and it catches every automated request equally. If a camping site you know is missing from this table, that is the most likely explanation, and opening the page yourself is a check we cannot run at this scale.

Frequently asked questions

Related guides