Skip to content

The Global Site List vs. Effective Target Selection??

edited January 2013 in Other / Mixed
Assuming that the 'Identified' list within the Global site lists is a
collection of submitted, verified and failed sites whose engines
have been identified by GSA........why would someone
ever include 'identified' by default when using the
Global Site Lists as a source for targets in a project?

1) Specifically, why not always use the 'verified' list option
if you are going to post links to the Global sites list.
'Identified' would seem to include a HUGE number of
unsuccessful links and a waste of SER resources.

2) IMO It would also seem that including  the  'successful' when
posting with the Global Sites List would not be extremely
productive as that would be a huge list of sites
which may or may not have even accepted our link in the
first place. Still a gamble. Unless we are to assume that we
are actually getting a large number of the 'success' list sites
to take our link and we just are never able to get it verified.

3)Any idea of a percentage here of links in the 'success' list
that actually stick but can never be verified?

Looking forward to some opinions and insight into this use
of the Global Site List for target sites. :)


  • AlexRAlexR Cape Town
    Good thoughts!

    I use the identified as maybe it had an error on captcha or bad proxy or bad email, etc. This way it goes through them an neatens them and finds more matches.

    But if you want highest success rate, then use verified, but it can be a little limited on some of the platforms. 

    BUT what you're looking for is Feature 5!
  • I just use identified for now as each project has different settings and I am not too concerned about efficiency at the moment.

    Just cos a link didn't get on the verified list once doesn't mean it is a viable target....

    If I have projects I need a ton of links to instantly (doesn't happen often), then I can go with the verified list immediately.
  • edited January 2013
    Thanks for the feedback.

    I see your point...there could be some links
    to be had that were skipped/fouled for whatever
    reason on the initial pass.

    But in my limited experience with GSA so
    far, my identified list is many times the size
    of any other site list and the VAST majority
    of it consists of sites other than success
    or verified- so it just seemed like a huge
    undertaking to bring those sites back
    into the targeting process when we compare
    the odds of getting a link out of it.

    If we are including 'identifed' in our Global Site choices
    it just seems more logical to use those valuable threads
    on new searched targets and/or the 2 other site
    lists we know do not contain huge numbers targets that
    completely struck out. (except for the exceptions
    you mentioned that may have occurred).

    I will do some more testing with the settings and see if
    there is a substantial impact on Lpm and verified totals with
    and without the 'identified' list included as a target source.

  • I'd never use the "identified" lists for resubmissions as I truly believe that the overwhelming majority of them are comprised of invalid fields, wrong registration pages, inproper formating, etc. Where as, the successful list (aka submissions) are far more prone to be used a few more times, as they mostly are comprised of failed captchas, website/server down, slow page load times, bad proxies, etc.

    Like Brumnick stated, use the verified list if you need some quick and easy links for other projects that may need the extra boost (use very sparingly).

    You can also compare the identified engines to the successful submitted engines to determine which engines are producing the best results overall. This will increase your verification rates. You can do this by going to Advanced > Tools > Show Stats. Setup the stats in excel and compare. Kudos goes out to LeeG for this information. He came up with the tip, which I tested recently.....and it works.

Sign In or Register to comment.