- Nov 2, 2008
- 59,085
- 26,605
by jove hes got it.
gscraper question
- Thread starter proxygo
- Start date
by jove hes got it.
- Aug 7, 2011
- 1,577
- 1,432
Why you dont use other software for proxy testing? I never used Gscraper for testing proxies because it was not accurate, people i know who sell google passed proxies (not on this forum) also dont use Gscraper or SB for proxy testing.
- Nov 2, 2008
- 59,085
- 26,605
because as a proxy seller since 2002 i prefer to sell proxies specific that work
and pass certain criteria for that tool, that way people cant say , i loaded
1000 of your proxies in this tool and 50 worked the others failed.
this is why i have 2 refunds on bhw in 8 yrs and those 2 where people
i threw out my service.
and pass certain criteria for that tool, that way people cant say , i loaded
1000 of your proxies in this tool and 50 worked the others failed.
this is why i have 2 refunds on bhw in 8 yrs and those 2 where people
i threw out my service.
Sometimes dotNet has a fit, especially with Nvidia graphics and has display problems. Try minimizing to tray and then expanding.
- Nov 2, 2008
- 59,085
- 26,605
will try that tomorrow im running gtx 770 oc but with services msc nvidia is disabled
and so is it in mscconfig i also think my dotnet is disabled but thats never effected
testing proxies for gscrper/sbox
and so is it in mscconfig i also think my dotnet is disabled but thats never effected
testing proxies for gscrper/sbox
- Nov 2, 2008
- 59,085
- 26,605
i dont want access to your service, read what i said again.
i said
meaning if i send out untested proxies people will complain i dont test them
they will say to me they loaded 1000 of your/ meaning me my proxies
and they didnt work, this is why i only send out gscraper tested lists
get it now
Last edited:
- Nov 2, 2008
- 59,085
- 26,605
yeh well when they finally replied from support last week, had taken them
2-3 weeks to reply....dont even bother messaging hawke on skype u got
more chance winning the lottery than him replying , even if he does you
will probably get this
problem is support emails they reply once every 2-3 weeks and hawks
personal skype is online 24/7 but u have more chance of a reply from god
Some where around 729 GScraper passed proxies and using 500 threads. The image will show that I am using complex search terms. Because of the terms, scraping is slower than using simple terms.
I am running a scrape in ScrapeBox using roughly similar terms and the ScrapeBox Harvester proxies. The screenshot should give you something to compare to.
@proxygo Look to the dotnet version you are using.
I am running a scrape in ScrapeBox using roughly similar terms and the ScrapeBox Harvester proxies. The screenshot should give you something to compare to.
@proxygo Look to the dotnet version you are using.
Last edited:
- Aug 7, 2011
- 1,577
- 1,432
"powered by mephisto" "a response" - less than 100 search results in google.
"powered by habari" "add to the discussion" - less than 100 search results in google.
Bro you dont know how to build footprints. First learn that, than scrape. Your footprints are not complex, your footprints are 100% wrong.
Are you sure? Or are you only seeing part of the query? It looks to me like you are only seeing part of the query, you know only the part that shows inside the textbox, but not the part that extends beyond the textbox.
Even accepting your flawed premise, you would still be wrong.
Last edited:
- Nov 2, 2008
- 59,085
- 26,605
i have been testing lots of proxy types passing gscraper test but scraping nothing.
this also means its higly likely u could get 500 proxies passing the gscraper test
and only 50 proxies actually scraping leaving the user thinking there all scraping
when in fact there not...ive ran this test several times this week and no this is
happening..
this also means its higly likely u could get 500 proxies passing the gscraper test
and only 50 proxies actually scraping leaving the user thinking there all scraping
when in fact there not...ive ran this test several times this week and no this is
happening..
Some where around 729 GScraper passed proxies and using 500 threads. The image will show that I am using complex search terms. Because of the terms, scraping is slower than using simple terms.
I am running a scrape in ScrapeBox using roughly similar terms and the ScrapeBox Harvester proxies. The screenshot should give you something to compare to.
@proxygo Look to the dotnet version you are using.
Are you saying that you think gScraper is working fine?
- Nov 2, 2008
- 59,085
- 26,605
and as i said trev gscraper is passing proxies that dont even scrape ide bet my vip status
90% of those proxies he used are scraping nothing and only 10% actually do anything
at all.....but the illusion they all passed the test and its scraping makes people think there
all scraping when they are not.
90% of those proxies he used are scraping nothing and only 10% actually do anything
at all.....but the illusion they all passed the test and its scraping makes people think there
all scraping when they are not.
This is what I did. I scraped 92,000 public proxies. Initially I was going to run them through GScraper v 1.3.0.6 and then separate them by port 8080 and 3128 as well as keeping a copy of all the proxies on those ports and the proxies on those ports with the Chinese proxies remove. This did not work out because there were 122 hung proxies that GScraper could not get past in a reasonable time. So I dumped the list into ScrapeBox and tested the proxies. Afterwards, I separated any proxy that was alive without regard to anonimity and according to the two ports listed, with and without Chinese proxies. So we move onto pictures.
I had about 5900 port 3128 proxies that had were alive in SB and had Chinese proxies. These were imported into Gscraper
After testing the proxy through GScraper, I had 93 passed proxies.
For the scraping I used the same query set, but due to the nature of multi tasking I could not tell you which queries were run, or in what order.
With the Chinese proxies in the set, there were only 42 URL's per minute.
When the proxy set in which the Chinese proxies were removed, 71 URL's per minute were scraped.
Moving on to the port 8080 proxies, I had no where near the quantity of port 8080 proxies as I did the port 3128 proxies.
Including the Chinese proxies, I imported 479 proxies.
Of these, only 20 passed GScrapers proxy test.
Then I scraped against my query set.
We can see that the scrape was 226 URLs per minute.
When the above test was completed, I loaded the proxy set without the Chinese proxies, 447 proxies..
The I tested them with GScrapers proxy tester. 16 proxies survived the test.
I then scraped against my query set. The rate of scraping without the Chinese proxies, and only having 16 proxies, was 477 URLs per minute.
Draw your own conclusions.
I had about 5900 port 3128 proxies that had were alive in SB and had Chinese proxies. These were imported into Gscraper
After testing the proxy through GScraper, I had 93 passed proxies.
For the scraping I used the same query set, but due to the nature of multi tasking I could not tell you which queries were run, or in what order.
With the Chinese proxies in the set, there were only 42 URL's per minute.
When the proxy set in which the Chinese proxies were removed, 71 URL's per minute were scraped.
Moving on to the port 8080 proxies, I had no where near the quantity of port 8080 proxies as I did the port 3128 proxies.
Including the Chinese proxies, I imported 479 proxies.
Of these, only 20 passed GScrapers proxy test.
Then I scraped against my query set.
We can see that the scrape was 226 URLs per minute.
When the above test was completed, I loaded the proxy set without the Chinese proxies, 447 proxies..
The I tested them with GScrapers proxy tester. 16 proxies survived the test.
I then scraped against my query set. The rate of scraping without the Chinese proxies, and only having 16 proxies, was 477 URLs per minute.
Draw your own conclusions.
Not working fine as in no problems, but working better than it was. There are some things that are flaky. There are areas that ProxyGo and I agree on.
Last edited: