Investigating Discrepancy in Table Data Enrichment with HTTP API | Clay

Investigating Discrepancy in Table Data Enrichment with HTTP API

Hi, I am using an HTTP API to write to another table and have set up a manual waterfall, it is pulling in the information okay but it seems like there may be an error on the actual waterfall as my fully enriched rows are 45/799 which seems like there should be additional information. Is anyone able to look at the table and tell me if they see why there may be this massive discrepancy?

9 comments

Channeled
APP
·
·
There could be a few key reasons for this discrepancy in your waterfall results: 1. The enrichment might be successful but not finding the specific data points you're looking for, causing it to continue waterfalling to subsequent providers. 2. For email waterfalls specifically, some emails might be found but failing validation checks, which causes the waterfall to continue running to find valid alternatives. 3. Check your HTTP API setup for potential issues: • Verify your rate limits are not too restrictive • Ensure your auto-update settings are configured correctly • Review any conditional run criteria that might be preventing some rows from processingWould you like me to take a closer look at your specific setup to help identify the exact cause? Sources: Enrich Companies (Waterfalls) [CRM Enrichment] - Clay University Enrich People (Waterfalls) [CRM Enrichment] - Clay University HTTP API with JWT Authentication - Clay University
Channeled
APP
·
·
Looks like you're still looking for help. We're escalating this over to our support team and someone should be in touch soon. In the meantime, feel free to include any other information that may be helpful in solving your issue!
Griffin D.
·
·
https://app.clay.com/workspaces/263283/workbooks/wb_2nRy7ZYqQpKq/tables/t_p56ME3vcJ9WV/views/gv_hafx8kMyFG7P
Stefano
·
·
Hi Griffin, thanks for reaching out. It looks like you have 66 filters applied, many of which are excluding rows that have already been enriched. Is there a specific reason for having so many filters in place? If possible, could we simplify them to make it easier for me to review the issue?
Griffin D.
·
·
Yes I am happy to simplify them if that is applicable, the only filters I was trying to accomplish with this table was that review count was higher than 20 and that their was a valid website
Stefano
·
·
Hi Griffin. To achieve this, you can apply two simple filters to your table. First, for the "Valid" column, which is a checkbox, filter it to show only rows where the checkbox is marked as True. This will ensure that only records with a valid website are included in your results. Next, for the "ratingCount" column, you can set a filter to display only rows where the rating count is greater than 50. This will allow you to focus on entries that have more than 50 reviews. By applying these two filters, you’ll effectively narrow down your results to only those that meet both criteria: a valid website and a rating count higher than 50.
Griffin D.
·
·
thank you stefano, that helped clear it up to about 289 of people i'd like to get an email for, any clarity if i am using the email waterfall correctly?
Stefano
·
·
Hi Griffin, your waterfall looks correct!
Channeled
APP
·
·
Hi Griffin D.! This thread was recently closed by our Support team. If you have a moment, please share your feedback: