[jadell]

I run a large scraper farm against several large sites. They're not online shops, and we don't compete with them. But they do have hundreds of thousands of data points that we use to provide reports and analytics for our clients, who also do not compete with the sites.

I absolutely would pay for an API that provides that data. I'd be willing to pay 10x more than the cost of maintaining and running the scrapers.

But the sites being scraped have no interest in that.

[CWuestefeld]

Have you tried approaching those sites and asking them to provide an API, pointing out that it would be easier for both of you in the long run? Or are you just assuming they wouldn't do it.

Because right now, I sure wish that the bots - which comprise probably 2/3 of my traffic - are causing me huge headaches and I wish that the people doing it would tell me what the heck they want.

[jadell]

Yes, we have. And no, they are not interested.

[texasbigdata]

Building and maintaining the scraper is the not cost they would use to measure it internally. It’s the cost to build the API, and support it and perhaps any perverse incentive it creates where even more data flows out to competitors.

[jadell]

For all intents and purposes, this isn't competitive data for them. There aren't really competitors in the space anyway, the barrier to entry is ridiculous. In fact, by law, operators in the industry are required to share this particular data with each other and industry regulators. But they don't share it with outside parties in the aggregate form we need it in. Hence, the scraping.

[RobSm]

Building API is 5 times easier than building routes for your public webpages, which is basically an 'API' as well.

[wolverine876]

And the cost of being scraped.