Issues with Email Validation and Debounce in Waterfall Workflows

Noa Ruccius · 2024-10-29 11:11:58.761877+00

Why when I try to validate emails with Debounce in this waterfall in this table for a bunch of emails that are actually found it does "run condition not met." Why does it not check it at all? it wastes me so many credits. And basically doing the waterfall on all those providers. Waterfall is supposed to be a way to save credits and not waste them... :disappointed:

Issues with Email Validation and Debounce in Waterfall Workflows | Clay

8 comments

· Sorted by Oldest

Channeled
APP
·
·
💤 You've caught us outside of our support hours (9am-9pm EST), but don't worry - we'll be back in touch within 24 hours (often sooner!). If you haven't already, please include the URL of your table in the thread below so that we can help you as quickly as possible!
Noa Ruccius
·
·
If you look at the test I did with Zerobounce on the first few rows, it did succeed in validating the email, while for most of the waterfall, Debounce just did not work, and I spent my credits on each provider. I would appreciate receiving the credits that were wasted on this technical issue. And learn how to make sure it would not happen again.
Noa Ruccius
·
·
It just skips possible emails. I did the check now for the whole column, and some are valid, and some are not, but in the water, it just does not check for it at all li
Daniela Debebs (Clay)
·
·
Hey Noa! Thanks for reaching out. Happy to help here✨. I made a quick video explaining the waterfall logic here: https://www.loom.com/share/9a4cf328f940413d872e56e5fe85fd42 Here's an explanation for the waterfall validation process: The waterfall gives you the option to add a validation provider to check results from each email finder. When the validation tool determines the email is invalid, the next email finder tries to find a new one, but if it finds the same email as the previous column it won't try to validate it again because it already tried to validate once before, and this could result in no final output because none of the emails found were valid. We automatically hide validation columns helping keep tables clean and that's why it's not evident at first glance. Let me know if you still have any questions though! Additional example and explanation: https://www.loom.com/share/e79acd92841a4706b1710c4ce1bddaa4
Noa Ruccius
·
·
Thank you so technically, there is no way to save credits on providers the results with the same email account because I cannot know previously what their results would be unless I don't care about validation. But at least the validation tool does not run if it is the same and technically saves me credits
Noa Ruccius
·
·
?
Bo (Clay)
·
·
You’re correct in thinking that credits are not saved upfront since the provider still has to check for results to validate emails. While the validation tool does avoid using credits on duplicates, skipping initial checks would mean you might miss emails that could be found otherwise. Let me know if there’s anything specific you’d like to explore for credit efficiency!
Channeled
APP
·
·
Hi Noa Ruccius! This thread was recently closed by our Support team. If you have a moment, please share your feedback:

Channeled
APP
·
·
💤 You've caught us outside of our support hours (9am-9pm EST), but don't worry - we'll be back in touch within 24 hours (often sooner!). If you haven't already, please include the URL of your table in the thread below so that we can help you as quickly as possible!
Noa Ruccius
·
·
If you look at the test I did with Zerobounce on the first few rows, it did succeed in validating the email, while for most of the waterfall, Debounce just did not work, and I spent my credits on each provider. I would appreciate receiving the credits that were wasted on this technical issue. And learn how to make sure it would not happen again.
Noa Ruccius
·
·
It just skips possible emails. I did the check now for the whole column, and some are valid, and some are not, but in the water, it just does not check for it at all li
Daniela Debebs (Clay)
·
·
Hey Noa! Thanks for reaching out. Happy to help here✨. I made a quick video explaining the waterfall logic here: https://www.loom.com/share/9a4cf328f940413d872e56e5fe85fd42 Here's an explanation for the waterfall validation process: The waterfall gives you the option to add a validation provider to check results from each email finder. When the validation tool determines the email is invalid, the next email finder tries to find a new one, but if it finds the same email as the previous column it won't try to validate it again because it already tried to validate once before, and this could result in no final output because none of the emails found were valid. We automatically hide validation columns helping keep tables clean and that's why it's not evident at first glance. Let me know if you still have any questions though! Additional example and explanation: https://www.loom.com/share/e79acd92841a4706b1710c4ce1bddaa4
Noa Ruccius
·
·
Thank you so technically, there is no way to save credits on providers the results with the same email account because I cannot know previously what their results would be unless I don't care about validation. But at least the validation tool does not run if it is the same and technically saves me credits
Noa Ruccius
·
·
?
Bo (Clay)
·
·
You’re correct in thinking that credits are not saved upfront since the provider still has to check for results to validate emails. While the validation tool does avoid using credits on duplicates, skipping initial checks would mean you might miss emails that could be found otherwise. Let me know if there’s anything specific you’d like to explore for credit efficiency!
Channeled
APP
·
·
Hi Noa Ruccius! This thread was recently closed by our Support team. If you have a moment, please share your feedback: