<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Feature Requests — GSA SEO Forum</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/</link>
        <pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2026 17:42:40 +0000</pubDate>
        <language>en</language>
            <description>Feature Requests — GSA SEO Forum</description>
    <atom:link href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/categories/suggestions-feature-requests/feed.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
        <title>Honest Indexer - API support</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34170/honest-indexer-api-support</link>
        <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 21:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>sickseo</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34170@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi,<br /><br />Any chance you can add api support for honest indexer into GSA SER?<br /><br /><a href="https://honestindexer.com/api-doc/" rel="nofollow">https://honestindexer.com/api-doc/</a><br /><br />Thanks]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Clean up removal tool engine selection - Ease of engine selections help</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34456/clean-up-removal-tool-engine-selection-ease-of-engine-selections-help</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2026 19:38:04 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>googlealchemist</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34456@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div>For the clean up (check and remove non working) tool in the settings/advanced area. Could we get the options to be more like the remove dup url function. </div><div><br /></div><div>IE sorted by alphabetical</div><div>sitelist_Article</div><div>etc</div><div>Or some other way where we can just easily select them based on the engine type. I have a ton of urls I'd like to have the software go thru and check if they are alive still and if so, if they need to be re sorted into any other/additional engine platforms since they were originally imported/identified.</div><div><br /></div><div>But I dont want to waste a ton of time going thru blog comments/guestbooks/etc right now, just focusing on the primary contextual engines and a few others I actively use right now.</div><div><br /></div><div>But the clean up tool looks like its just one big list of alphabetically sorted engines w/o any sort of batching together of the various types like the above mentioned dup removal tool.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thanks</div>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Save verification options</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34688/save-verification-options</link>
        <pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2026 08:33:11 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>londonseo</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34688@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div><a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/Sven-" rel="nofollow">@Sven-</a> can we have a way to save the new verification options?</div><div><br /></div><div>Thanks</div>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Insert verified links from project after a certain amount of time</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34463/insert-verified-links-from-project-after-a-certain-amount-of-time</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 19:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>londonseo</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34463@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div><a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/Sven" rel="nofollow">@Sven</a> </div><div><br /></div><div>Can we have an option to Insert verified links from project after a certain amount of time.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thank You</div>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Add API to GSA SER and Contact form marketing?</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34458/add-api-to-gsa-ser-and-contact-form-marketing</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>hardcorenuker</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34458@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/Sven" rel="nofollow">@Sven</a> I am playing with moltbot (<a href="https://clawd.bot/)" rel="nofollow">https://clawd.bot/)</a> and it is interesting.<br /><br />I am wondering if you can add API to GSA SER and maybe contact form marketing so that I can get moltbot to manage the projects (turn on or off, or restart, get reports etc) easily<br /><br />This isnt just for me, i think this big trend in AI will continue and instead of us managing the GUI of GSA products, having APIs will allow more of your customers to handle the sotware using natural language.<br /><br />Hope you consider this. thanks!]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>More options for re verifying links scheduling</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34390/more-options-for-re-verifying-links-scheduling</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 21:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>googlealchemist</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34390@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[Its a very cool option just to have it at all, it really is. But could there be a bit more granularity. Such as the first re verification round could be as it currently is, after X minutes/days/hours...but then after that first past...<br /><br />Especially if we set it at say, one full week, which should be plenty of time for a moderator (or crybaby member to report to a mod etc) to delete a post/link if they are ever going to see it and do so.<br /><br />But after that it would be more about the site no longer existing due to the owner discontinuing the project, quit paying for hosting, etc and the site itself goes offline. Or they do a big yearly purge of stale accounts etc.<br /><br />Just to avoid wasting resources building additional t2 links over the very long term. And to avoid resources reverifying way more often than required after that first re verification. (Maybe just the second option ability to set it every X days/months AFTER the first reverification?)<br /><br />Anyone have any thoughts or feedback on this?]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Could We Get Generic URLs On A Per-Project Basis?</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34015/could-we-get-generic-urls-on-a-per-project-basis</link>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>Deeeeeeee</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34015@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Sven, could we have each project so each has its own Generic URLs (in the Article Pane)   if we choose to </b><i><b>NOT </b></i><b>use the default file? Like we have for images and videos?</b></div><div><b>That would be great.</b><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Maybe even better, but maybe not worth it, is this idea:</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe images and video, as they are now, could be changed? Maybe increased user options could apply to all three data sets, not just the proposed Generic URLs?  </div><div>So not only would users have increased flexibility working with Generic URLs, but also with images and videos?<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>We could have something even better than a separate project-based set of data  for each the generic URLs,  images, and video, that are saved to fixed files associated with each project,  with the goal of making this data more easy for the user to work with.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe, Sven, we could  also gain the ability to <i>choose </i>the file associated with each project on user choosing NOT to go with the default file when Random URLs is checked?<br /></div><div>This could work for images and video, too...</div><div><br /></div><div>Having a choice of importing any of the three...the images, the videos, and the random URLs...from other projects,  or just choosing from other projects by checklist or importing from file or just using the data in external file?</div><div>I know I would find this useful, and I'd be able to work with all this more easily. Not sure if other users would also benefit, but I would think so.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Thank you.</div>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Suggested removal of outdated options in SER (Filter &amp; Indexing sections)</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34421/suggested-removal-of-outdated-options-in-ser-filter-indexing-sections</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>verdemuschio</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34421@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p><b>Hi Sven,</b></p><b>
</b><p>I’d like to suggest reviewing two options in SER that, in practice, no longer provide real value in modern SEO workflows:</p>
<ol><li>
<p><strong>Filter → “Skip submission if the URL/domain is appearing on one of the following blacklists”</strong><br />
This feature is based on public DNS/host blacklists that are outdated, inconsistent, and often unrelated to SEO quality.<br />
When enabled, it also slows down the submission process, increases proxy usage, and introduces unnecessary overhead—without offering any real benefit for the final link quality. Since SER already relies on project-level filters (engines, metrics, footprints, etc.), this option has become redundant.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>Indexing → “Submit backlink URLs to blog search engines”</strong><br />
Most of these ping services (Twingly, WeblogUpdates, etc.) are no longer active or no longer used by search engines.<br />
Submitting to them doesn’t have any measurable impact on indexing anymore. Keeping the option active today only creates extra traffic and adds noise without improving results.</p>
</li>
</ol><p>Given that SER has evolved a lot and focuses on more practical indexing options, removing these legacy features could free up UI space and reduce confusion for new users. Those areas could be reused for functions that better reflect current indexing or filtering methods.</p>
<p>Just a suggestion for future versions. Thanks as always for your work on SER.</p>
<p>Best regards.</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Some more options for selective blacklisting for same domain based on engine</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34422/some-more-options-for-selective-blacklisting-for-same-domain-based-on-engine</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 18:06:25 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>googlealchemist</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34422@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[Best example I can use for what I'm asking is if a forum profile is set to noindex, I dont want to build those profiles on that domain but...<br /><br />I'd still like the domain to be used for indexable public forum posts, or blog comments, redirects, etc.<br /><br />It'd be great to be able to have an option to sort this out without having to have a million separate projects separated by engines, domains, etc]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>skip sites with the following words in url/domain - request to make it root domain specific not url</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34411/skip-sites-with-the-following-words-in-url-domain-request-to-make-it-root-domain-specific-not-url</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 18:38:40 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>googlealchemist</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34411@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[I have a list I've curated of super spammy keywords that i want to avoid getting links from any domains that have them in it...basically porn/gambling/pills type stuff.<br /><br />i see the main system wide settings has the blacklist for actual domains but within the specific project settings i can add my keyword blacklist in the "skip sites with the following words in url/domain" section.<br /><br />its the 'url' part that is holding me up. if i have a ton of sites scraped and alot of them were used for building links to the type of sites in the niches i want to avoid...like redirects/indexers/contextual profile urls etc<br /><br />gooddomain.com/redirect=spammynichedomainurl.com<br /><br />gooddomain.com/userprofilesuperspammykeywordhere<br /><br />gooddomain.com/indexersite-spammykeyworddomainhere.com<br /><br />etc<br /><br />i still want to get a link from that good domain, so i dont want ser to filter it out based on the full url where its going to see one or more of my blacklisted spam keywords to not build links on<br /><br />id rather not have to strip every domain in my lists to their root and re import/identify/etc the whole thing to clean this up. other than the resources wasted to do that, i would be worried it wouldnt identify all the same link targets again like it did with the inner page.]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>omocaptcha captcha solver</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34405/omocaptcha-captcha-solver</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>organiccastle</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34405@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi <a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/Sven" rel="nofollow">@Sven</a>,<br /><br />Could you integrate <i>omocaptcha </i>into SER, please?<br /><br /><a href="https://omocaptcha.com/" rel="nofollow">https://omocaptcha.com/</a><br /><br />Thanks!]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Project Article Manager Feature Request: Insert X-Y addt'l links OPTIONS</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34417/project-article-manager-feature-request-insert-x-y-addtl-links-options</link>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 20:28:03 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>Deeeeeeee</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34417@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div>Hi, Sven! I have a few ideas I was wondering if you and the GSA community might consider.</div><div><br /></div><div>The <b>first request </b>is adding another option for</div><div>Insert X-Y addt'l links (just a link in an article- use a random word/phrase)</div><div>Could we also control placement of this anchor - at the begin/middle/end/all of the article  (that we can set) like "visit us on Google at LINK"<i> (As we already have for the MAIN article KW?)</i></div><div>Truthfully, I realize I don't know how the existing 2 options operate! <img src="https://forum.gsa-online.de/resources/emoji/hushed.png" title=":hushed:" alt=":hushed:" height="20" /> Umm...does SER already do this? Sorry...</div><div>Also wondering if this could be a checklist pop-up...so we can choose to have secondary links at the bottom of article in a sentence, as well as at the top and middle, all with different canned sentences, if not choosing the other two options that already exist?  (just a link in an article- use a random word/phrase)</div><div><br /></div><div>The <b>second request </b>is adding an option for specifying anchor source from  the different anchors  lists for the project or all. Then we can use anchor lists like Partial or  LSI or whatever for this if we're already using (or not even using!!) and have more precise project secondary anchor control using these anchor lists for this slot in the article.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>How to get Target URLs</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34237/how-to-get-target-urls</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 16:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>londonseo</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34237@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/sven" rel="nofollow">@sven</a><br /><br />Please can we have options under the "How to get Target URLs", User Defined - Configure<br /><br />Options like Select/Deselect All etc.<br /><br />Thanks<br />]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Proposal for GSA URL Testing Tool</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34393/proposal-for-gsa-url-testing-tool</link>
        <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 20:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>Deeeeeeee</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34393@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div>I think that this would be great to have. If you check its use ✅ within a project, the SER shifts the burden  of re-verification to the module and relies on saved settings for that project.  So for that project, and all checked projects, SER does no re-verifying, ever. I guess this program will have to update links two of SER's project lists, Verified and Failed_Re-Verification, as well as update last-link-check date info in SER-associated project files as well. And, I guess it needs its own per-project supplemental Reverify setting file. </div><div><br /></div><div>This could work with both SER and other SEO programs, as well as be fed lists or work with an API for greatest use-instance!</div><div><br /></div><div>This could be lightweight because it's relatively simple.</div><h2><br /></h2><h2 data-id="the-utility-could-be-written-for-ser-so-we-can-have">The utility could be written for SER so we can have:</h2><h2><br /></h2><ul><li><h2 data-id="re-verify-urls-on-verified-urls-list-or-on-templates-for-popular-seo-programs-or-user-defined">Re-verify URLs on  Verified URLs list (or on templates for popular SEO programs, or user-defined)</h2></li><li><h2 data-id="re-check-urls-on-failed-reverification-urls-list">Re-check URLs on  Failed-ReVerification URLs list</h2></li><li><h2 data-id="timetables-can-be-set-on-a-per-project-basis">Timetables can be set on a per-project basis.</h2></li><li><h2 data-id="different-response-codes-can-yield-different-actions">Different response codes can yield different actions.</h2></li><li><h2 data-id="certain-backlinks-could-be-prioritized-to-test-first-based-on-many-criteria">Certain backlinks  could be prioritized to test first based on many criteria.</h2></li><li><h2 data-id="customizable-timeouts-for-different-link-types-country-codes-etc">Customizable timeouts for different link types, country codes, etc.</h2></li><li><h2 data-id="prioritize-or-omit-based-on-date-range-link-type-url-mask-country">Prioritize or omit based on date range, link type, URL mask, country</h2></li><li><h2 data-id="set-very-schedule-for-re-verify-independent-of-check-failed-re-verification-scheduling">Set very schedule for re-verify independent of check failed-re-verification scheduling.</h2></li><li><h2 data-id="set-up-a-third-list-called-failed-reverification-x-timeframe-for-links-that-have-remained-dead-for-x-time">Set up a third list called failed_reverification_X_timeframe for links that have remained dead for X time.</h2></li><li><h2 data-id="that-can-be-set-for-a-global-so-that-all-project-only-check-their-really-old-links-very-infrequently-and-there-are-filters-there-as-well">That can be set for a global so that all project only check their really old links very infrequently, and there are filters there as well</h2></li></ul><div><br /></div><br /><br />]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>New GSA SER Macros for Other AI Systems like OPENAI [..,..]</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34389/new-gsa-ser-macros-for-other-ai-systems-like-openai</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 17:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>Deeeeeeee</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34389@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div>I have been testing the GSA-SER Macro  OPENAI [..,..] and I am thinking I may reserve it solely for article projects. Right now I'm seeing how this is working on many types of links. OFC, that is going to be way more expensive...probably need better filters...we'll see...</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/Sven" rel="nofollow">@Sven</a>, I am sure you probably don't think this on-the-fly generation is a good use of resources. At least, probably not how I am testing right now. That is...unless you're using your own AI system...then I guess on-the-fly generation is no cost, except for running your own AI machine....</div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, are you planning to add any other Macros for AI services? I have been playing with this lately, and I have yet to explore the other services. (I think a primer on the AI services out there might be good if anyone has a link.) But actually using them is the real test. I am using DeepSeek for solving text now.  Never played with it in any other way.</div><div><br /></div><div>But might we get more macros?</div><div><a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/Sven" rel="nofollow">@Sven</a> and fellow GSA forum members, I am not familiar with the different AI services out there to be the person to know which might be best to include as macro commands.</div><div><br /></div><div>As the new AI Module Sven wrote can do a ton of stuff, I don't know the specifics yet.  Can I set all the services to have API keys, or just one?  If we already can load the different Services with API keys for each, then I think this is already halfway there. Any ideas on this? Thanks to anyone for reply.</div>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Ability to pause search engines and target sites if proxy/ip banned?</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34387/ability-to-pause-search-engines-and-target-sites-if-proxy-ip-banned</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>googlealchemist</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34387@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[Mostly thinking of scraping search engines for targets, they all seem to have such different timings/threads/etc that they tolerate before banning an ip/proxy im trying to figure out.<br /><br />Could there be a function if ser gets the message that I no longer have any unbanned proxies, it will automatically pause that search engine for 12 or 24+ hrs for it to reset?<br /><br />Similar question for different platforms being posted to like wordpress.com or whatever other sites might ban based on ip.<br /><br />Thanks]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>ability to add/use articles for blog/image comments and guestbooks</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34332/ability-to-add-use-articles-for-blog-image-comments-and-guestbooks</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 16:35:09 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>googlealchemist</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34332@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[It would be awesome to have the article tab enabled to use with these engines so I can just use the %article% or  %article_summary% <br />macros depending on max char length vs stuffing a big spun chunk in the field.]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Highlight for SER in Project Off Status Mode</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34381/highlight-for-ser-in-project-off-status-mode</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2025 02:06:02 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>Deeeeeeee</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34381@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div>Hi, Sven and GSA professionals and hobbyists, alike. I know I've proposed some silly GSA mods in the past but I know some have also been helpful. I'd rather just be open and bring forth ideas and let those who know better decide. <img src="https://forum.gsa-online.de/resources/emoji/wink.png" title=";)" alt=";)" height="20" /></div><div><br /></div><div>I know Sven's time is valuable like gold. And we don't want to waste his time.</div><div><br /></div><div>So what's this great idea? It really isn't. <img src="https://forum.gsa-online.de/resources/emoji/neutral.png" title=":|" alt=":|" height="20" /> haha Really...I was Just wondering if a highlight feature in the Project pane might be cool.  That's it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Like so, when you're working on projects and all is in STOPPED Project mode, background colors can be assigned via the right-click menu and so you can easily see which you've processed, etc. </div><div><br /></div><div>Once projects go START the background colors disappear or just take up 1/5 the current background color bar for each Active project on the L or R. ?? I have no idea.</div><div><br /></div><div>Umm...yeah..As I preambled, I said this was not one of my best ideas literally <img src="https://forum.gsa-online.de/resources/emoji/lol.png" title=":lol:" alt=":lol:" height="20" /> rn. <img src="https://forum.gsa-online.de/resources/emoji/neutral.png" title=":|" alt=":|" height="20" />  </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyone see a good use for this at all? Could/would this help you organize, GSA forum users?</div>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Modification of 'Automatically export verified URLs' Option</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34287/modification-of-automatically-export-verified-urls-option</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 12:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>OJM321</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34287@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[This is one suggestion I thought of when it comes to automatically exporting to file, the verified links of each project.<br /><br />In the case someone chooses a CSV to save their verified links by clicking that checkbox in the options tab of the project. - write the same  exact columns /data to it, that you get from:<br /> right clicking a project<br />seeing the urls to export and doing just that (saving to CSV (normal)) for example. <br /><br />so, all the exact same columns from there.<br /><br />Why? At the moment, it only exports the URLs with no columns to CSV. <br /><br />Maybe cool for most cases. But I have this technically complex setup using python to guage whether a link is worth indexing with mysql stuff to insert it elsewhere. I guage it by exporting the verified urls by right clicking the project, exporting the projects URLs to CSV (Normal) with all the fields where python then references specific column names. But this is all manual stuff each day.  <br />When I searched the forum recently I found this automatically verify feature but now don't feel i can use it now unless i convert the txt to CSV which is more script work.<br />Anyway, maybe others have the same interest as mine, i get if this is too edge-case though!<br />Thanks <img src="https://forum.gsa-online.de/resources/emoji/smile.png" title=":)" alt=":)" height="20" />]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Ability to use title of target url as anchor text?</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34375/ability-to-use-title-of-target-url-as-anchor-text</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 17:58:36 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>googlealchemist</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34375@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[I see there are a few macros that are close to this such as "%blog_title%<div>The title of the current URL you are about to submit to (everything between html tag &lt;title&gt;&lt;/title&gt;) is used here."<br /><br />But I'd like to be able to use the title tag of the target url I am linking TO, not the url I am linking FROM.<br /><br />Both for a list of urls I input manually from the very start of the project as tier 1's, but also to be able to use this function for building t2 links.</div>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>CAPTCHA Solver Integration Support</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34364/captcha-solver-integration-support</link>
        <pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2025 14:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>gprialde</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34364@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi, I'd like to ask integration support for our reCAPTCHA solver. Just create an account at <a href="https://solverecaptchas.com" rel="nofollow">https://solverecaptchas.com</a> and login to see API document. Free 1 USD is also added to the account for testing. <br /><br />We solve reCAPTCHAs v2 and v3 only for now. We have $0.3 per 1000 solves price rate and solving speed is less than or below 20 seconds on average.<br /><br />Thanks!]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Reverification &quot;Threads To Use&quot;</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34369/reverification-threads-to-use</link>
        <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2025 11:51:42 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>londonseo</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34369@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div><a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/Sven" rel="nofollow">@Sven</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Is it possible to have a separate number of threads for reverification so that it happens quicker?</div>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Could We Have An Append/Clear Choice For Loading Status Profiles?</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34348/could-we-have-an-append-clear-choice-for-loading-status-profiles</link>
        <pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 15:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>Deeeeeeee</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34348@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div>For project selection, we have loadable and savable project status profiles. </div><div><br /></div><div>Could we also have  checkbox: </div><div>[x] clear present selection before adding</div><div>or </div><div>radio buttons :</div><div>O append ● clear first</div><div>sort of like we have for the engine selection in Projects? So that we can have more flexibility in selecting projects...</div><div><br /></div><div>Thanks. Have a  good weekend, everyone!</div><div><br /></div><br />]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Improving the Nested Spin Syntax Parser for Power Users</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34345/improving-the-nested-spin-syntax-parser-for-power-users</link>
        <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 18:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>DMWebDev</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34345@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Hello Sven,</p><p>First of all, thank you for creating such a powerful and versatile tool. I've been using GSA SER for a long time and it's an essential part of my workflow.</p><p>I'm writing to make a feature request regarding the spin syntax parser, specifically its handling of complex, deeply nested articles.</p><p><strong>The Problem:</strong><br />When working with very large and complex source texts (e.g., 50kb+ with multiple levels of nesting), the current parser often fails silently. It doesn't throw an error message, but in the preview (and in the final submission), it stops processing the spin syntax midway through the article. The first part of the text is spun correctly, but the rest is output as raw text, including all the {, |, and } characters.</p><p><strong>Example of problematic structure:</strong><br />The parser seems to struggle with structures that are either deeply nested (more than 2-3 levels) or have many nested blocks at the same level, like this:<br />{{Option A {1|2}}|{Option B {3|4}}} which leads to {many|a lot of} {possibilities|outcomes}.</p><p><strong>The Impact:</strong><br />This limitation forces advanced users to aggressively pre-process their source texts with external scripts to "flatten" the syntax. This process often reduces the overall uniqueness and variety of the source article, which counteracts the goal of using high-quality spun content. It also adds a complicated extra step to the workflow.</p><p><strong>The Request:</strong><br />Would it be possible to consider improving the spin syntax parser in a future update? A more robust parser that could handle at least 4-5 levels of nesting, or a higher complexity of blocks on the same level, would be a massive quality-of-life improvement for many power users. This would allow us to use much more complex and unique source articles directly within GSA SER.</p><p>Thank you for your time and consideration. GSA SER is a fantastic product, and this improvement would make it even better.</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>GSA SER Wind-Down File</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34343/gsa-ser-wind-down-file</link>
        <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 22:56:01 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>Deeeeeeee</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34343@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi, Sven and everyone around. <img src="https://forum.gsa-online.de/resources/emoji/smile.png" title=":)" alt=":)" height="20" /> Wondering if anyone thinks this may be a good idea: Have a file in the main folder or where ever that just has some variable that may  be set or not and if set, SER will over-ride current thread settings and go down to only one thread so that once the program is closed in some other way,  there won't be loose ends in the process of being posted to.  This is intended for instances when there is an issue and SER can't be closed in the usual way.]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Site List = add feature: Bulk change format</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34318/site-list-add-feature-bulk-change-format</link>
        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 07:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>royalmice</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34318@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/Sven" rel="nofollow">@Sven</a> <br /><br />Please, if possible, could you consider adding a option on the right click menu to: <b>Set format for all lists.</b><br /><br /><div><img src="https://forum.gsa-online.de/uploads/editor/2v/jpbphuk2y9nf.png" alt="" title="Image: https://forum.gsa-online.de/uploads/editor/2v/jpbphuk2y9nf.png" /><br /></div><br />]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>GSA Search Engine Ranker New Feature Request: Lock Project Status</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34328/gsa-search-engine-ranker-new-feature-request-lock-project-status</link>
        <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 01:56:49 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>Deeeeeeee</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34328@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<div>Greetings, Sven, and fellow GSA enthusiasts! I'd like to know if this feature is already present, and if not, if it might make sense to implement. </div><div><br /></div><div>So it would work like this: If I have a project set to Active (S), can it then be locked in that state, and only if unlocked will its status change, regardless of whether I change the project state by selecting that one alone or more than one project.  This could be indicated with a background color different than default for the status column only, or whatever convention might fit better.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thanks for listening. <img src="https://forum.gsa-online.de/resources/emoji/smile.png" title=":)" alt=":)" height="20" /> I'd just like to know what others think. Useful or not, and what use-cases might it best serve?</div>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Select Projects with Submitted URLs</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34290/select-projects-with-submitted-urls</link>
        <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2025 10:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>londonseo</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34290@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/sven" rel="nofollow">@sven</a> - can you add this feature to select projects that have submitted URLs]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Remove specific links</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/34294/remove-specific-links</link>
        <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2025 10:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>londonseo</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">34294@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<a href="https://forum.gsa-online.de/profile/sven" rel="nofollow">@sven</a> - can you add a feature to remove specific links in a project?]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>ChatGPT / GPT3 / Open AI api for generating text or comments</title>
        <link>https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/30659/chatgpt-gpt3-open-ai-api-for-generating-text-or-comments</link>
        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 10:52:20 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Feature Requests</category>
        <dc:creator>AngryRedPanda</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">30659@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[What do you think about the idea of generating articles or comments through api open ai? They have api access, it doesn't cost very much, and I think it would be better than what a lot of people use. For example, comment generate like this - give the article we're going to comment on and ask for a conclusion about the article or use other forms of queries to GPT.<br />]]>
        </description>
    </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
