Optimizing Data to Target Municipal Decision Makers for Recreation Access

Whenever Watersports · 2025-04-22 15:35:26.801124+00

Hi - I need help optimizing my table. We are trying to scrape municipality decision makers (Directors of Parks and Rec, City managers, Mayors, etc.) from municipalities that manage access points to recreational bodies of water. Table works decent, however we still end up reaching out to a fair amount of municipalities that don’t manage any access points to recreational bodies of water.

Optimizing Data to Target Municipal Decision Makers for Recreation Access | Clay

9 comments

· Sorted by Oldest

Channeled
APP
·
·
To optimize your Clay table for accurately scraping municipalities that manage access points to recreational bodies of water, we recommend using our "write to table" feature with a targeted Google search query. Here's how you can refine your approach: 1. Use specific keywords in your Google search query, such as "municipality water access management" or "city recreational water access points". 2. Combine these with location-specific terms to narrow down results. 3. Utilize Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to create more precise searches. 4. Consider adding exclusionary terms to filter out irrelevant results. After setting up your optimized query, Clay will automatically run the table, providing more accurate results tailored to your specific needs. What specific challenges are you facing with your current search query that's leading to irrelevant results?
Source: Claybooks: Perform Google searches and find web pages that mention specific keywords | Clay.com
Whenever Watersports
·
·
https://app.clay.com/workspaces/82534/workbooks/wb_4d5qmbz2CwEf/tables/t_RAyXXBVsvTck/views/gv_etvoKPBRsEcs
Smit (Clay)
·
·
Hi there, thank you for reaching out! This seems like an interesting use case, would love to help you optimize the tables. Do you mind expanding on what you believe needs optimizing, any specific columns? This would help me understand how best to improve things. - Smit
Whenever Watersports
·
·
The first would be the “Recreational Body of Water” template. It still seems like we get a fair amount of results marked as “true” that are cities that don’t actually manage an access point to a recreational body of water. Then of course we are always trying to optimize the “Contact Search” column to hopefully better scrape any relevant decision makers
Smit (Clay)
·
·
Can you point me to certain example rows in the "Recreational Body of Water", where it should have returned false but ended up returning true
Whenever Watersports
·
·
An example from the table would be Buhl, Idaho. It mentions they manage Box Canyon State Park but that’s not true as the state manages that. This hurts are outbound as a lot of people end up responding that they don’t manage any bodies of water
Whenever Watersports
·
·
Smit (Clay)
Smit (Clay)
·
·
Hi there, sorry for the delay. I’ve updated the prompt so that when it determines a city maintains a water body, it now also checks if the state is actually responsible. It also verifies whether the water body is part of something like a state park—if so, it returns "False," since both the park and the water body would be managed by the state. You’ll find this updated prompt in the ‘Clay Support’ column. I tested it with Buhl, Idaho, and it correctly returned "False." Please try using this column for cases where you noticed incorrect results, and feel free to tweak the prompt further to add more guardrails or verification steps as needed. I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions :)
Channeled
APP
·
·

Channeled
APP
·
·
To optimize your Clay table for accurately scraping municipalities that manage access points to recreational bodies of water, we recommend using our "write to table" feature with a targeted Google search query. Here's how you can refine your approach: 1. Use specific keywords in your Google search query, such as "municipality water access management" or "city recreational water access points". 2. Combine these with location-specific terms to narrow down results. 3. Utilize Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to create more precise searches. 4. Consider adding exclusionary terms to filter out irrelevant results. After setting up your optimized query, Clay will automatically run the table, providing more accurate results tailored to your specific needs. What specific challenges are you facing with your current search query that's leading to irrelevant results?
Source: Claybooks: Perform Google searches and find web pages that mention specific keywords | Clay.com
Whenever Watersports
·
·
https://app.clay.com/workspaces/82534/workbooks/wb_4d5qmbz2CwEf/tables/t_RAyXXBVsvTck/views/gv_etvoKPBRsEcs
Smit (Clay)
·
·
Hi there, thank you for reaching out! This seems like an interesting use case, would love to help you optimize the tables. Do you mind expanding on what you believe needs optimizing, any specific columns? This would help me understand how best to improve things. - Smit
Whenever Watersports
·
·
The first would be the “Recreational Body of Water” template. It still seems like we get a fair amount of results marked as “true” that are cities that don’t actually manage an access point to a recreational body of water. Then of course we are always trying to optimize the “Contact Search” column to hopefully better scrape any relevant decision makers
Smit (Clay)
·
·
Can you point me to certain example rows in the "Recreational Body of Water", where it should have returned false but ended up returning true
Whenever Watersports
·
·
An example from the table would be Buhl, Idaho. It mentions they manage Box Canyon State Park but that’s not true as the state manages that. This hurts are outbound as a lot of people end up responding that they don’t manage any bodies of water
Whenever Watersports
·
·
Smit (Clay)
Smit (Clay)
·
·
Hi there, sorry for the delay. I’ve updated the prompt so that when it determines a city maintains a water body, it now also checks if the state is actually responsible. It also verifies whether the water body is part of something like a state park—if so, it returns "False," since both the park and the water body would be managed by the state. You’ll find this updated prompt in the ‘Clay Support’ column. I tested it with Buhl, Idaho, and it correctly returned "False." Please try using this column for cases where you noticed incorrect results, and feel free to tweak the prompt further to add more guardrails or verification steps as needed. I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions :)
Channeled
APP
·
·