GScrapper - better than scrapebox?
- Thread starter ScrapeboxWorker
- Start date
drywallrob
Senior Member
- Apr 27, 2011
- 1,027
- 493
Is anyone using their proxy service? It would be nice to know if it is worth the $66 / month.
- Nov 2, 2008
- 59,087
- 26,630
all i will add is ive done 3/5k Google passed proxies per day
for 3 and a half yrs for my subs on bhw 0 refunds
at 130$ mon/fri - 65$ weekend both these payments
are a lifetime sub to Google passed proxies to either
s/box or gscraper
and i dont no anyone that surpasses that for value
longevity and price and proxie amounts
Last edited:
SEO_Alchemy
Elite Member
- Sep 8, 2012
- 1,673
- 1,473
I'm a die hard Scrapebox fan and pretty advanced user. It's my go to tool box for many daily tasks, but after plying with Gscraper all I can say is it is way faster for scraping. All other functions I use Scrapebox. For list sorting, for index checking, for blog analyzing, etc. etc. But for straight up scrape... Gscraper has taken the crown IMO.
W9go
Elite Member
- May 16, 2011
- 5,841
- 1,308
the most here have scrapebox. it was the standard software tool before panda. so there is no need to look for another scraper since scrapebox s one of the bots which works 100%.
but if you dont have it an look for a scraper i heared good things abot gscraper.
but if you dont have it an look for a scraper i heared good things abot gscraper.
Cloudbacklinks
Regular Member
- Sep 26, 2011
- 311
- 79
I'm looking to get that proxy server to scrape wikis. I tested it, very fast.
gogetta
Power Member
- Oct 4, 2008
- 732
- 1,347
I have never been able to scrape a list with hrefer or scrapebox as fast as I can with gscraper. I was so sick and tired of not being able to build a damn list for the mods I spent weeks and months creating Xrumer to post to.
So, based primarily on the scraping speeds, and thanks to gscrapers proxies which I dont mind paying monthly for, this shit will run circles around scrapebox any day. I have SB and I will continue to use it for the things I need to. But when it comes to harvesting url's gscraper wins without a doubt.
So, based primarily on the scraping speeds, and thanks to gscrapers proxies which I dont mind paying monthly for, this shit will run circles around scrapebox any day. I have SB and I will continue to use it for the things I need to. But when it comes to harvesting url's gscraper wins without a doubt.
Last edited:
- Jun 1, 2012
- 446
- 215
The speed of scraping is more to do with your Internet connection and the amount of proxies you have right? I use scrapebox on a vps with 40 proxies. And because I only have 40 proxies I can only run 1 thread at a time or my proxies will burn out, this is because of googles restrictions not scrapebox.
I would like to know how fast you could scrape with scrapebox if you had 1000's of proxies to burn.
I would like to know how fast you could scrape with scrapebox if you had 1000's of proxies to burn.
alaltaierii
Supreme Member
- Jun 11, 2010
- 1,494
- 388
You can use more than one connection if you are using 40 private proxies. Try to keep a ratio 1/5 - 1/10 of your total proxies. So, for 40 proxies you can use even 3-4 threads.
Following this rule, with 1000 proxies you should run at least 100 threads.
godspeed007
BANNED
- Jan 10, 2013
- 768
- 285
IMO gscrapper is better.
gogetta
Power Member
- Oct 4, 2008
- 732
- 1,347
There is no time to wonder what it would be like to have 1000's of proxies to burn on scrapebox. They dont supply a list or a way to get the amount of google passed proxies to make it as efficient as gscraper. Ok, so what you are paying for 40 private proxies, and running 1 thread at a time? Come on, do you not realize how weak that shit sounds. Then what, for the average SB user the other options is to use public proxies from where, coolproxies or thebigproxylist, which both suck ass. Because by the time you get the lsit all the google passed proxies no longer work. Im not blamming SB and saying that it is not a good tool. But if they cant provide me with a way to get the scraping job done then it's a waste of my time.
Now with gscraper due to their great non stop working proxies I can run 350 threads and have 1.6 million urls in about an hour. Show me where SB can do that. I dont want to wait hours for scrapebox to harvest proxies at 200 threads to come out with 15 to 25 google passed proxies, and by the time I am ready to start the scraper half of them have already been banned by G. Nah, Im good where I'm at. I dont have to buy anymore abused links list or anything.
- Jun 1, 2012
- 446
- 215
The reason why I only use 1 thread with 40 proxies is that I use complex operator searches with scrapebox. If I was just scraping basic keywords I can get away with using 4 or 5 threads.
