1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ScrapeBox - Fast vs Slow Poster! Is slow worth the time ?

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by pisco, Nov 18, 2010.

  1. pisco

    pisco Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2010
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Lisbon
    Well the question is pretty straightforward, taking into account posting in the thousands of url's, is the slow method really worth it regarding time consumed ?

    For instants, I harvested 10k urls, cleaned dups, run the link checker, and the blog analyser, was left with 8k, fast poster with these using 90 timeout time and for connections use 20% of the proxy number (100proxy = 20 conn).

    Manage to post sucessfully 4k in about 2h (maybe less), other 4k failed, scraped new proxies and went for slow, and it will take surely more than 24h at a success rate of +- 50% (atm), so I will gain maybe more 2k posted, but will waste 24h.

    My gut feeling tells me it's really not worth it, unless you really find it crucial to post the best % ever (no matter what).

    What are you big scrapers doing ? This seems to only make sense in High PR blogs, and very small lists, on the other hands these smalls lists maybe would benefit more by posting manually.

    Sometimes I rinse and repeat the fast poster twice, more than that seems to yield little to no benefit, but i still feel the urge to waste days using the slow poster after this.
     
  2. sksugo

    sksugo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    18
    I've been testing out the slow poster and fast poster out lately and I think it is not worth it. I would need to run the slow poster for hours posting to a list that had about 2k links. I think it took me something like 15 hours using slow poster, and my success ratio hadn't gone up by that much.

    I still stick to fast poster, it gets way more done in a shorter amount of time. It probably fails a handful more times than the slow poster.

    I found that my success ratio with slow poster compared to fast poster didnt make too much difference.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  3. DaveWolf

    DaveWolf Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    31
    I never use the slow poster. I always run the fast poster and make an extra run with the failed posts. Often with an extra result of +10%
     
  4. alimsalim

    alimsalim Newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    2
    nice thread
     
  5. icecream

    icecream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    4
    I set up the same test a few weeks ago and had the same results, just go with the fast poster for now.
     
  6. Namun

    Namun Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    175
    Slow poster doesn't have worth unless the blogs are high quality or you use a small list.

    But in that case you might as well post manually.
     
  7. hounddomain

    hounddomain Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    54
    Fast Poster only for me - have used the slow poster previously, but unless you have server resources to burn and a nice fat pipe and a high PR list then IMO its not worth it.
     
  8. bet00ST

    bet00ST Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never use the slow poster. I always run the fast poster and make an extra run with the failed posts. Often with an extra result of +10%
     
  9. shaggy93

    shaggy93 Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    449
    Location:
    0.0.0.0
    For me Fast poster is best. If you have decent server and 50+ private proxies then it can blast 400k list in 2.5 hours.