Looking for ScrapeBox Contact Form Platforms

jawnyh

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
101
Hi everyone, I am currently building out a strategy that involves using ScrapeBox to post to websites contact forms with decent success.

However, I would like to maximize my submission success by building out more platforms that are currently identified as Unknown in the poster.
I have watched all of @loopline videos but I get stuck with more complex things.

For example, I build out a custom platform which correctly identifies the forms in the poster but more often than not those forms do not use accurate name attribution for the fields so that I am left with stuff like:

name=formfield[yxz123]
name=formfield[abc321]
name=formfield[123456]

these form fields seem to have completely random ids so the only way to post to them would be to use a wildcard such as formfield*=%rnd-name% , the problem is that if I use this multiple times to fill out all fields it will fail, either because it tries to fill out the first field multiple times and leave the rest or another logic problem.
Is it possible to pass on values to these fields based on another parameter such as placeholders or type of the fields or is it only possible to use the "name"=Value format?

Does anyone have an idea of how to make the platform post to such a form or is it simply not possible?
 
Hi everyone, I am currently building out a strategy that involves using ScrapeBox to post to websites contact forms with decent success.

However, I would like to maximize my submission success by building out more platforms that are currently identified as Unknown in the poster.
I have watched all of @loopline videos but I get stuck with more complex things.

For example, I build out a custom platform which correctly identifies the forms in the poster but more often than not those forms do not use accurate name attribution for the fields so that I am left with stuff like:

name=formfield[yxz123]
name=formfield[abc321]
name=formfield[123456]

these form fields seem to have completely random ids so the only way to post to them would be to use a wildcard such as formfield*=%rnd-name% , the problem is that if I use this multiple times to fill out all fields it will fail, either because it tries to fill out the first field multiple times and leave the rest or another logic problem.
Is it possible to pass on values to these fields based on another parameter such as placeholders or type of the fields or is it only possible to use the "name"=Value format?

Does anyone have an idea of how to make the platform post to such a form or is it simply not possible?
Id have to see a specific example to really help you specifically, but it "Should" work as long as each one is unique.

you could also try the part here
http://scrapeboxfaq.com/when-traini...oster-to-new-forms-what-variables-can-be-used

called "sections" it essentially lets you create a variable and then use it, kind of.
 
Id have to see a specific example to really help you specifically, but it "Should" work as long as each one is unique.

you could also try the part here
http://scrapeboxfaq.com/when-traini...oster-to-new-forms-what-variables-can-be-used

called "sections" it essentially lets you create a variable and then use it, kind of.


Hi loopline, thanks for the quick reply.
The form consists of 3 fields:

1:
<input name="smFieldData[wpformfield83225]" id="smform-field73330" value="" placeholder="" class="smform-control smform-controllabelpos required smform-field-sizemedium" type="text" required="" date-type="text" aria-required="true">

2:
<input name="smFieldData[wpformfield101229]" id="smform-field73331" value="" placeholder="" class="smform-control smform-controllabelpos required smform-field-sizemedium" type="email" required="" date-type="email" aria-required="true">

3:
<textarea name="smFieldData[wpformfield41269]" id="smform-field73332" placeholder="" class="smform-control smform-controllabelpos required smform-field-sizelarge smform-control smform-controllabelpostextarea" required="" data-type="textarea" aria-required="true"></textarea>

I tied to use:
smFieldData*=%rnd-name%
smFieldData*=%rnd-email%
smFieldData*=%rnd-comment%

But I assume it failed because those wildcards could all fit all fields, however I cant see how else I could implement it as those ids seem to be completely random.
I tested it with the right ids for each field and without wildcard and it worked so it must be the wildcard logic that isn't working this way.

Any ideas?
 
I love Scrapebox.. But I've had a lot of success using GSA Website Contact for this purpose. I've also tried Paigham Bot, but I prefer the GSA product. I've never been able to get a high success rate with Scrapebox when posting to contact forms, but that's on me for not following the tutorials.
 
I love Scrapebox.. But I've had a lot of success using GSA Website Contact for this purpose. I've also tried Paigham Bot, but I prefer the GSA product. I've never been able to get a high success rate with Scrapebox when posting to contact forms, but that's on me for not following the tutorials.
I have been looking into the GSA Website Contact, what success rate do you usually get? Does it have a huge amount of forms that it can recognize?
 
Hi loopline, thanks for the quick reply.
The form consists of 3 fields:

1:
<input name="smFieldData[wpformfield83225]" id="smform-field73330" value="" placeholder="" class="smform-control smform-controllabelpos required smform-field-sizemedium" type="text" required="" date-type="text" aria-required="true">

2:
<input name="smFieldData[wpformfield101229]" id="smform-field73331" value="" placeholder="" class="smform-control smform-controllabelpos required smform-field-sizemedium" type="email" required="" date-type="email" aria-required="true">

3:
<textarea name="smFieldData[wpformfield41269]" id="smform-field73332" placeholder="" class="smform-control smform-controllabelpos required smform-field-sizelarge smform-control smform-controllabelpostextarea" required="" data-type="textarea" aria-required="true"></textarea>

I tied to use:
smFieldData*=%rnd-name%
smFieldData*=%rnd-email%
smFieldData*=%rnd-comment%

But I assume it failed because those wildcards could all fit all fields, however I cant see how else I could implement it as those ids seem to be completely random.
I tested it with the right ids for each field and without wildcard and it worked so it must be the wildcard logic that isn't working this way.

Any ideas?
Yes its failing because it can match any form.

If the wpformfield41269 is always the same numbers on every form then you can put them in. Else the "sections" extraction should work fine and transform that data into something specific, a specific variable.
 
Yes its failing because it can match any form.

If the wpformfield41269 is always the same numbers on every form then you can put them in. Else the "sections" extraction should work fine and transform that data into something specific, a specific variable.

Thank you loopline, I was checking the part about sections in your post but I am still quite confused on how to use it in this case.
Do you have an example for a field, it would make the whole thing a lot easier to understand.
 
Hi loopline, thanks for the quick reply.
The form consists of 3 fields:

1:
<input name="smFieldData[wpformfield83225]" id="smform-field73330" value="" placeholder="" class="smform-control smform-controllabelpos required smform-field-sizemedium" type="text" required="" date-type="text" aria-required="true">

2:
<input name="smFieldData[wpformfield101229]" id="smform-field73331" value="" placeholder="" class="smform-control smform-controllabelpos required smform-field-sizemedium" type="email" required="" date-type="email" aria-required="true">

3:
<textarea name="smFieldData[wpformfield41269]" id="smform-field73332" placeholder="" class="smform-control smform-controllabelpos required smform-field-sizelarge smform-control smform-controllabelpostextarea" required="" data-type="textarea" aria-required="true"></textarea>

I tied to use:
smFieldData*=%rnd-name%
smFieldData*=%rnd-email%
smFieldData*=%rnd-comment%

But I assume it failed because those wildcards could all fit all fields, however I cant see how else I could implement it as those ids seem to be completely random.
I tested it with the right ids for each field and without wildcard and it worked so it must be the wildcard logic that isn't working this way.

Any ideas?

[xxxxx]
Action=extract (extract a text between before and after)
Before= The text before the wanted part
After= The text after the wanted part
Default= If no part can be extracted, this is what will be used by default

Note: The xxxxxx between the brackets can be anything you want.

Once you have a section setup, you use it in the [Step] section with the:

%xxxxxx% Executing a section with the name xxxxx

So like this


[name_111]
Action=extract
Before=name="
After=]"
Default=1

then in the ini you would do

%name_111%=%rnd-name%





So the section called name_111 is going to go thru and extract the value of the name part and then transform that into a variable that you can use

Now what I put above will probably have to be changed depending on the source code, but its an example.
 
I have been looking into the GSA Website Contact, what success rate do you usually get? Does it have a huge amount of forms that it can recognize?
The success rate I getting was roughly 70% when I was using it regularly. It seems to be able to cover all major contact forms. It works with 2Captcha or xEvil or GSA Captcah Breaker, etc.

I don't want to take anything away from Scrapebox at all. It's my all time favorite software program. I just had a hard time making it post to contact forms. However, I did use it to scrape for contact pages vs using the built in GSA tool or Paigham Bot's built in tool.
 
If you said success rate is OK, but click rate is very low 0.0001 only.
 
If you said success rate is OK, but click rate is very low 0.0001 only.

So you're saying 1 million successful contacts results in only 1 click? That doesn't sound right.

Does anyone know the real average number of clicks to expect?
 
So you're saying 1 million successful contacts results in only 1 click? That doesn't sound right.

Does anyone know the real average number of clicks to expect?

I means you got more click, but just 0.0001 click conversion. One month got one or two leads or no leads
 
I means you got more click, but just 0.0001 click conversion. One month got one or two leads or no leads

That still doesn't sound right. Can you say what your real numbers were?

How many successful contacts did you submit?
How many clicks did you get from those?
How many leads did you get from those clicks?

Thanks
 
That still doesn't sound right. Can you say what your real numbers were?

How many successful contacts did you submit?
How many clicks did you get from those?
How many leads did you get from those clicks?

Thanks

Already said one month I can receive one or two leads or nothing . Sent the total million one month success. Or you just try youself see what results?
 
Already said one month I can receive one or two leads or nothing . Sent the total million one month success. Or you just try youself see what results?

Yeah I was going to try. But 1 lead from contacting 1 million websites seems like terrible results. Don't you think you did something wrong?
 
No something wrong, because I use two years already, 1 million no just one day or two day sent finish, this must use more time sent finished. I use one months sent the 1 million++ total, a little disappointed results, wherever I change the title change the message but same result, so I just let run only.
 
Last edited:
No something wrong, because I use two years already, 1 million no just one day or two day sent finish, this must use more time sent finished. I use one months sent the 1 million++ total, a little disappointed results, wherever I change the title change the message but same result, so I just let run only.

Wow I guess I won't even try then. Getting 1 lead from contacting 1 million websites is really discouraging, and you've been testing this for 2 years. Clearly contact form marketing doesn't work.
 
The success rate I getting was roughly 70% when I was using it regularly. It seems to be able to cover all major contact forms. It works with 2Captcha or xEvil or GSA Captcah Breaker, etc.

I don't want to take anything away from Scrapebox at all. It's my all time favorite software program. I just had a hard time making it post to contact forms. However, I did use it to scrape for contact pages vs using the built in GSA tool or Paigham Bot's built in tool.

ScrapeBox doesn't have a lot of different forms, or form fields trained out of the box it's got some to start you off and it's more of a roll your own solution so you can be hitting sites and forms that nobody else is hitting. It has editable definition files and you can make your own platform definitions or modify existing ones. GSA is an excellent tool and seems to be the opposite with a lot of forms out of the box, which gives a lot of successful posts but with everyone using the same definitions and posting to the same sites i guess the conversions get much harder. I had a test site and contact form left open and was getting +30 different marketing messages a day. When a webmaster is getting hit so much they aren't going to buy or signup to anything you send and just bulk delete.

Wow I guess I won't even try then. Getting 1 lead from contacting 1 million websites is really discouraging, and you've been testing this for 2 years. Clearly contact form marketing doesn't work.

This kind of goes on from my post above, the gravy train definitely left the station but contact marketing still works. However IMHO now i think you need to get outside the box a bit and hit those contact forms that others aren't hitting, with good offers people havn't seen a bunch already. I know some users with heavily customized definition files doing good numbers on submissions and conversions.
 
If you said success rate is OK, but click rate is very low 0.0001 only.
Everything @Sweetfunny said above is true.

Something else is that there are a lot of factors at play. I send 2 million contact form submissions a day + or - some.

The number one issue is spam filters. I have spent a lot of time optimizing to get around these as much as possible, but they are quite good and they will filter a good bit of your messages no matter what, if you are doing in bulk. If you are doing like 500 a day, the sure, you can have great inboxing rates. Or if your doing super niche and want to invest in a lot of uniqueness, but thats a good bit of dollars.

As for the second issue, its your copy. In the past 2 years Ive learned a lot and copy I thought would do poorly has done better then copy that seemed like it would be good. So you need to sort out what your audience wants, split testing is the easiest way to do this.

But my rates are way higher then what you posted. I mean .33% click thru rate is like a the bottom end of poor click thru rates for me. 1%+ is in the good range and when I do remarketing 5% to 7% is average. But its going to vary across campaigns and offers etc.. depending on what your doing.
 
The number one issue is spam filters. I have spent a lot of time optimizing to get around these as much as possible, but they are quite good and they will filter a good bit of your messages no matter what, if you are doing in bulk. If you are doing like 500 a day, the sure, you can have great inboxing rates. Or if your doing super niche and want to invest in a lot of uniqueness, but thats a good bit of dollars.

What are some ways to invest in uniqueness and avoid the spam filters?

Do you mean like trying to spin the messages and use more different set of names, emails, subject lines, etc..?

I guess it would be bad to send the exact same message to 1 million contact forms?
 
Back
Top