Discrepancy in Clay Credits Usage and Refund Request | Clay

Discrepancy in Clay Credits Usage and Refund Request

I ran a Clay table here which gave me an estimate of 2,000 credits. After running this on 1010 rows, I was told it would cost 2,000 credits but got charged over 8,000 credits. I had to buy more credits which got consumed as well. Since my Clay credits ran out mid way, this also led to data not being populated on the Email Text column (i.e bniu@apexsemi.com in the last screenshot). Is there a way I could get a refund and guidance on how to collect this data? How did it spend over 2,000 credits as well?

20 comments

Channeled
APP
·
·
Regarding the credit charges, different providers have different charging policies. Some providers charge credits just for attempting to find a result, regardless of whether they find valid data or not.For cases where providers don't return valid data, here's how the refund policy works: ** If a provider charges us for an API call, those credits will be charged to your account ** If the provider refunds us due to invalid data, we will refund those credits back to youTo collect the missing email data that wasn't populated due to running out of credits: 1. First, ensure you have sufficient credits in your account 2. Go to your first waterfall column 3. Use the "Run all rows that haven't run or have errors" option - this will only process the entries that weren't completed, avoiding duplicate runs on successful searchesTo check which specific actions are refundable for each provider, you can review the provider policies in our documentation.If you need further assistance or have questions about a potential refund, please request human assistance by clicking on "Talk to a person". Source: What happens if one of your providers doesn't return valid data? - FAQ | Clay.com
Channeled
APP
·
·
Is that what you were looking for?
Channeled
APP
·
·
Hi Mathew M.! This thread was recently closed by our Support team. If you have a moment, please share your feedback:
Mathew M.
·
·
Has a refund been provided? Are there any articles I could review to understand how to re run those cells?
Channeled
APP
·
·
Looks like you're still looking for help. We're currently outside of our standard office hours (9 AM to 9 PM EST, Monday through Friday), so it may take a little longer for us to respond. If you’re dealing with a specific table, drop the URL below so we can help you quicker. Otherwise, someone from our team will be in touch soon!
Bo (.
·
·
Hey Matthew!
Thank you for following up here. I noticed that the AI replied but there wasn't a "talk to a human" button that was pressed so this was marked as resolved. For next time if you want to speak to us, click to "talk to human"
Regarding the estimation of the credits, that's an estimate. That estimate is taking in consideration if the first few runs are successful but in some of those cases, the first few providers weren't successful and it went to the next and the next trying to find an email and had to validate it (unless it found it previously). The waterfall you added with more providers is typically for someone that wants to find those emails at all costs because their lists would be super well qualified. Maybe that wasn't what you wanted here? In that case you could keep the waterfall to its original providers that'd keep this control a bit more under check. I'm also adding a credit report so you can see what was used. It seems like the "enrich person" was the most costly one.
Regarding your second question, can you do this for me: 1. Show All Rows: Follow the steps shown in the screenshot to display all rows. 2. Check Email Validity: Look for the hidden validation column to see if the found emails are valid or not. https://downloads.intercomcdn.com/i/o/w28k1kwz/1392076038/3c80f9079f4ee586ecbaa9e59b11/da15a069-fcfd-44b7-a080-3ef0b0ae23c7?expires=1740231000&signature=449037e42c375b1436f95a52a7ce3a9364f4acee045748a2f1e43f67137db6f5&req=dSMuFMl5m4FcUfMW1HO4zaXnDWtH%2FMHsUKlB9QxtcGZVQuYX3%2F8mIeuNGBED%0AvDxG%0A As you might have noticed, some emails are deemed invalid. Here's a recap of how our waterfall process works: When we need to find an email, we ask our providers if they have information on a particular contact. If they have the details, they send them to us. If not, they send nothing. Each successful inquiry costs credits, and we can't predict what they'll provide until we receive it. We then pass this information to a validation tool that also cost credits and to keep tables clean, validation columns are automatically hidden. If an email is invalid, the next email finder tries to find a new one. However, if it finds the same email as before, it won't re-validate it since it has already been checked and it won't return it in the final column.
If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask! Check out this Loom video for more details.
Channeled
APP
·
·
Mathew M.
·
·
Hey, thanks for sharing. I tried running the same cells again but I exhausted all my credits again. I've attached a screenshot but I will share a recording as well Bo (.
Mathew M.
·
·
Mathew M.
·
·
Here's a video as well
Mathew M.
·
·
Bo (. please let me know if I can get support on this, thank you!
Bo (.
·
·
Hey Matthieu! I just noticed that you seem to have used all your Zero Bounce API Key credits. Is this possible? In that case of errors, rows will be moved to the next one and this is what happened here. Two solutions: 1. You re-up your API Key and we re-run this 2. You switch to clay credits and re-run it
(137 kB)
Mathew M.
·
·
Damn... thank you
Mathew M.
·
·
Is there any way you can refund these credits? My apologies ....
Mathew M.
·
·
I've swapped the ZeroBounce API key to credits
Bruno R.
·
·
Hi Mathew, thanks for reaching out. Taking a look at this now! I went ahead and processed the refund for you here. Let me know if I can help with anything else here!
Mathew M.
·
·
Thanks Bo (. - so just to be clear, if I run the waterfall again, it won't use the same amount of credits and it would skip the emails that have already been found WHILE populating the Text output for the Email Waterfall?
Mathew M.
·
·
This is what I see after running a test on 20 rows
Mathew M.
·
·
Seems like its triggered the emails and the estimate was 20 credits but it charged 72 credits, why is this happening? It doesn't seem like the emails appear in text format too
Bo (.
·
·
Hey Mathew! When you run the waterfall again, it's checking if the input data has changed. If it has, previous results become stale (grayed out) and need to be re-run, which is why you're seeing higher credit usage. In your case, it estimated 20 credits but charged 72 because some providers might have flagged data as invalid, causing earlier results to be different from what was expected. This forces subsequent steps to re-run as well. We've added new settings that will help prevent this unexpected errors like you had with the validation in the future. Let me know if you need help configuring those settings!
(213 kB)