Skip to content

Where do you index-check links in bulk?

Anth20Anth20
in Other / Off Topic
I have been using SER, but I only have 30 proxies in SER and I can't get many checks out of it before they get banned.

Can anyone suggest anywhere or anything to use to bulk index check?

Thanks

Comments

  • SvenSven www.GSA-Online.de
    If you have private proxies, make sure to not use the option to disable proxies in proxy options.

    Thanked by 1Kaine
  • cherubcherub SERnuke.com
    I've been using https://www.indexedapi.com/ for when I need to bulk check indexing, instead of having to keep a decent set of Google-passed proxies. Though I find that checking indexing too often is one of those 'going down the rabbit-hole' situations, where you end up wasting time that would be better spent just building tier links and trusting them to perform to a certain extent.
    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • Anth20Anth20
    Sven said:
    If you have private proxies, make sure to not use the option to disable proxies in proxy options.


    Yeah my proxy settings are not set to disable, thanks Sven.

    I finally got round to testing Speedy Index, and I wanted to correctly check their indexed status. I've been using scrapebox since I had those errors in SER and it seems to check ok.

    I sent them my free 100 URLs and so far 5 are indexed after almost 72h. I really mixed them up though, just grabbed random links from my moneysite links and also included 25 from SEREngines.
  • Anth20Anth20
    I only use private ones from Buyproxies, as for speedy I'm not sure which ones I sent but I know I included 25 serengine sites.

    I now have this so far:



    I checked and 12/25 serengines are indexed so far. Others were contextual do-follow. I wasn't sure of a way to target only engines that are indexable only? I know we can do this in tiers, to select only those. But engine selection we can't, can we?
  • MikeGFXMikeGFX latex
    Anth20 said:
    I only use private ones from Buyproxies, as for speedy I'm not sure which ones I sent but I know I included 25 serengine sites.

    I now have this so far:



    I checked and 12/25 serengines are indexed so far. Others were contextual do-follow. I wasn't sure of a way to target only engines that are indexable only? I know we can do this in tiers, to select only those. But engine selection we can't, can we?

     I thought serengines no longer...wow is this still exist? If then no hands seo would be working as well lol...anyway how is it performing.


    How is buy proxies nowadays.. I am also thinking to change my proxy provider. Been using ip4 and ip6 proxies from reproxy.network. they are great for xevil but not much good with ipv4 for ranker x and GSA ser..

    Speedy links are great indexer... But I still prefer tired link building with my lists
  • Anth20Anth20
    My bad guys I meant to say SERlib. I'm ill with a virus atm  :D
  • KushphktKushphkt TMobile
    Scrapebox is way to go. Gsa is so bad when handle operators form checking proxies to scraping.  @Anth20 how about  your experience with serlib last time I check its a totally mess from ram , high CPU usage to hard to get indexed. It's better to spend few more bucks and stick on rankerx try it if you don't own it much better than serlib itself. There is a nice peer reviewed on bhw as well
    Thanked by 1Freshairforlife
  • SvenSven www.GSA-Online.de
    @Kushphkt "Gsa is so bad when handle operators form checking proxies to scraping" Please elaborate this!
  • AliTabAliTab https://gsaserlists.com
    backlinkaddict said:
    Kushphkt  I would find that elaboration pretty helpful as well.

    If something isn't "working"  for you and you provide no example, how can @sven fix? 

    Seems like hes always eager to address issues...quickly

    Though, comment doesn't seem to make much sense, in English.

    If you are going to suggest another way to parse for 2024, Scrapebox is your suggestion?

    Not sure why your comparing a 50$ monthly tool that's been around for years to a newer SER add-on that was recently being developed?

    I can't comment on current serLib, likely do to all this negativity and people saying things that are not true with no evidence, or complaining because users don't understand whats needed for some browser based engines to be successful and have a good stick rate. 

    Likely, the developer is keeping project or good engines for himself. Can't say I blame him. Either way, I hope @Alitab is doing OK.

    These are serLib links... Getting indexed



    These are also mainly serLib links getting indexed... so I guess it matters your content and what links you are sending because with working indexing service, they seem to index above 80 percent for me.



    So 80 percent in few days on few tests while triple checking, using multiple software's and different settings is a bad indexing rate?

    I was asked to provide test after one user was running around saying serLib does not work and crying for 20$ refund... Seemed to be looping through each engine and a bit more aggressive on some blogs as I had set...



    This was same time period, this crying about refund and trying to tarnish service was documented here...

    I guess some users should check settings, have basic SER knowledge and actually understand what's what's going on first before they make false claims. 

    This is just one simple example of quick test as well....

    Thank you for your support, @backlinkaddict.

    I've been focused on maintaining and enhancing the quality of my services, as well as developing a new service that will be launching soon. I won't go into more detail until it's officially released.


    @Kushphkt, since version 4.7 of SERLib https://gsaserlists.com/serlib-changelog/ , I have not received any reports concerning high CPU usage, and I believe this issue has been resolved within SERLib. Please note that regardless of the software you use to create and manage your Web 2.0s, they all share the same basic principles and mostly utilize Chromium, which is CPU-intensive. To run a higher number of threads effectively, a robust setup is required. The advantage of SERlib is that it centralizes management, making tiered link building much easier and fully automated.
  • KushphktKushphkt TMobile
    @Sven

    When I use Google passed proxies and check index on verifieds in gsa it to take ages to check and with scrapebox all proxies fine and no errors at all. But gsa getting failed after checking few. Its been like that for ages and I guess most of us earn SB and there is nothing to worry. Gsa ser always doing it's major job submitting to vast variety of engines.

    @backlinkaddict
    Have not used Serlib recently so not sure about laggy thing..opted for ranker x and never looked back. I really don't care wether tool is just devoped right now or old I am just looking for user friendly and affordable solution.

    I using gsa ser as it is. I feel it's clean and thats for me. So far I am good with what I am having.  I also using speedindexer and they are pretty good at indexing on google.but not other s.if you do this with ranker x I am pretty sure results are even better. Speedy indexer indexing ratio pretty insane and does work with google. Account suspension is way more less. But never with other engines which is a concern. So now I use ranker x and the best backlinks indexer which works nicely with other engines too. After all ranker x for me.

    Sorry I don't come here much. No I don't use scrape as it's cheaper to buy link lists for few bucks. I just said checking indexing is way more real and hassle free with SB. Try it. If you are using speedy indexer their indexing fee is bit higher and gsa is nearly impossible to check index and scrapebox with verified google proxies always do the trick. 




  • SvenSven www.GSA-Online.de
    @Kushphkt I don't own scrapebox and don't know how they check if an URL is indexed or not, but GSA does a full search on G. with that URL to see if a result is returned with the exact URL. Maybe you can get me details on how scrapebox is performing this task.
Sign In or Register to comment.