Case Study: Article Spinning and What Google Can Actually Detect

[thebitbotdotcom]

This is my response to the thread: Google does not like spun content

I felt it merited it's own because it is a case study of sorts, as you will see.

---

I am conducting a massive test as we speak on this very subject.

I have two article directories on my blog. One is a static directory and the other one is a spinner directory. I will not post links to them, because I don't want to get in trouble here.

I have a particular seed of moderate quality planted in my spinner directory that shows a unique spin every time the browser is refreshed along with the HTML.

I carefully checked the spinner for about 30 minutes and weeded out most of the wording that would make the snapshot seem or read funny (for the most part).

I then copied syndicated that same article from my spinner directory about 20 times and published all of them in the other article directory all on my own site (the same site and they are all lined up like ducks in a row - it is SO obvious).

Google spidered all of them and indexed 14 out of 20 on my own site, all sitting next to each other listed out in a row sitting right next to each other, SCREAMING SPUN CONTENT! and they are all still indexed and not going anywhere. That is a 70% indexing rate, which is comparable and better than many article directories. The only reason I stopped is because I just got tired of publishing.

If I want, I can log back on to the spinner and mod it a little more and crank the presses back up with no end in site.

Honestly, I can't see any difference between Google's behavior with respect to spun content as opposed to regular, hand written content.

For me, anybody who tells me now that spinning doesn't work if full of bologna. You get from it what you put into it and there is a right and a wrong way.

If I spend a little more time on this seed, and you find a copy of it somewhere on the web, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL IT IS SPUN EITHER, MUCH LESS GOOGLE.

Bottom Line: If you spin it well enough, you can easily pull the curtain on anyone's eye, yours, Google's or any other person.

To reiterate: This particular article was a 30 minute job that produced 20 unique articles two thirds of which were indexed on my site alone all sitting next to each other.

Spinning does have one important use that I can see. If I write 20 articles on a subject, quality will taper, probably starting with number 5 or so. I will start leaving out details and start wearing down.

A quality spinner from which all of the grammatical errors will have been removed, will maintain article quality from the first version to the last.

I removed my sig from this post because I don't want to be accused of advertising.

Say what you want as a response, I have hard data to back up my claims now...

Gotta leave for now, will respond later today.

[Tony Dean]

Thanks for that really good information about spinning, I am a great believer in spinning as much as possible thus gaining tens of thousands of backlinks in no time at all, and some traffic.

[markowe]

I just find spinning deadly boring, and if you are aiming for a decent style there AREN'T a thousand ways to say the same thing, proper expression is actually quite limiting in some respects. And even when you are VERY careful (and don't fall asleep in the meticulous process) you always miss something and fluff the style or grammar in some way. So i just don't bother spinning these days. I get the backlinks anyway - *shrug*.

[yukon]

I replied on that other nonsense thread.

Again...

Google doesn't have a clue what spun text is, they have no way to sort text into a logical order (NONE!)!

[markowe]

I think again it can depend to an extent on the 'depth' of the spinning - if all you are doing is 'synonymising', I rather suspect an algorithm COULD detect that. Google has had to do a great deal of research into language, natural language processing, latent semantic indexing etc. in developing the search algo. I rather suspect two texts COULD be compared at a semantic level and found to be highly equivalent. Whether or not they DO do that and whether it would be entirely reliable is another matter. Google SEEMS to be powerless to prevent the tide of crap flooding the Internet (try a blog search on any given subject and try to find an actual original article!), and most spinning is poorly done, I think it is fair to say.

[4morereferrals]

I once had 17 pages of of googles serps results ... indexed and cached content of a single un spun article - that I copied - just to prove a point ... 17 x 10 ... it was nutz. Alot of the pages have been pulled down off the community sites blogs they were on ... but i just looked and theres at least 20 copies of it left up - much now in the supplemental index.

[thebitbotdotcom]

Originally Posted by markowe

I just find spinning deadly boring, and if you are aiming for a decent style there AREN'T a thousand ways to say the same thing, proper expression is actually quite limiting in some respects. And even when you are VERY careful (and don't fall asleep in the meticulous process) you always miss something and fluff the style or grammar in some way. So i just don't bother spinning these days. I get the backlinks anyway - *shrug*.

I cannot lie, it IS boring, you are 100% correct. And there aren't 1000 different ways to say the same thing, but apparently Google can't tell the difference, at least not 70% of the time according to my test results. And that was just a first order synonym spin to boot. I didn't even spin any HTML, links, headers, etc. And I didn't knock out any sentences or paragraphs to change up the word count. They indexed 70% of them and they are still sitting there like crappy little ducks lined up in row saying: "Look at me! Look at me!" All on the same site where the spinner seed is sitting. Additionally, one nice thing about the spinner or spindication directory is, IF you notice grammatical errors being spindicated, you just log on and tune the wording or even add to and update it, then you have essentially a fresh article ready to take off. This type of thing, I am finding, blows the EZA/ArticleBase/GoArticles model away.

I am sure that there are many and I stress many Warriors who will rightly disagree with me for using this as a business model.

However, the hard data is telling me the exact opposite. With respect to your last comment, I can see now that spinning/spindication has a distinct and I stress distinct advantage over traditional article marketing in that you offer unique articles to publishers. Who can beat FREE unique content that reads well and is not detected as spun by search engines. This of course happens only after the seed matures, meaning you filter out all of the mistakes. I am showing syndication of a ratio of about 10:1 over traditional article marketing.

I am about to seriously drop-kick all of the big directories. They are farms duplicate content farms of almost no value. For me, the Farmer Update was the "handwriting on the wall".

Originally Posted by markowe

I think again it can depend to an extent on the 'depth' of the spinning - if all you are doing is 'synonymising', I rather suspect an algorithm COULD detect that. Google has had to do a great deal of research into language, natural language processing, latent semantic indexing etc. in developing the search algo. I rather suspect two texts COULD be compared at a semantic level and found to be highly equivalent. Whether or not they DO do that and whether it would be entirely reliable is another matter. Google SEEMS to be powerless to prevent the tide of crap flooding the Internet (try a blog search on any given subject and try to find an actual original article!), and most spinning is poorly done, I think it is fair to say.

My hat is off to them for the battle they are fighting for all of us to make sure that what they present is informative, meaningful and gibberish.

But that being said, after having experimented on my own and not just swallowing everyone else's "insight" on this subject, I can now see for myself that we are about to enter an information war the like of which we have never seen.

I can't image being able to detect the offspring of a maturing seed using an algorithm. I don't care if Google has the forty PHD's working exclusively on this project, I would still not want to be sitting on the receiving end of this one.

[ExploringInfinity]

Thanks for this thread.

Spinning is not dead. Anyone who spins content knows that.

[thebitbotdotcom]

Originally Posted by ExploringInfinity

Thanks for this thread.

Spinning is not dead. Anyone who spins content knows that.

I know some really big time names who do it and don't talk about it.

Some of my colleagues pay big money for them to do it.

The funny thing is...these are people who are really well known...too big to be seen around here.

In reference to your comment, spinning is dead if you suck at it.

But for those who have the skills, I have been shown that they are just getting started...like I said, an information arms race.

[yukon]

Did you have a unique page title + url string (domain.com/text-text-text/) for each page?

Supplemental is easy to avoid most times, If you have control over the page title & url structure.

I run a couple of image galleries & trust me, you'll get good at being creative with very little to work with (example: page-titles & url structure) to avoid the supplemental index. Still, like I said the biggest factor is page title & url structure, every single page has to be unique.

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

I once had 17 pages of of googles serps results ... indexed and cached content of a single un spun article - that I copied - just to prove a point ... 17 x 10 ... it was nutz. Alot of the pages have been pulled down off the community sites blogs they were on ... but i just looked and theres at least 20 copies of it left up - much now in the supplemental index.

[thebitbotdotcom]

Originally Posted by yukon

Did you have a unique page title + url string (domain.com/text-text-text/) for each page?

Supplemental is easy to avoid most times, If you have control over the page title & url structure.

I run a couple of image galleries & trust me, you'll get good at being creative with very little to work with (example: page-titles & url structure) to avoid the supplemental index. Still, like I said the biggest factor is page title & url structure, every single page has to be unique.

Oh, definitely! That's rule number one. The titles and URLs are all "technically" different, but to the human eye, seeing them all lined up, it is SOOOO obvious. Google looked straight at all of them and said: "Well, everything looks good here Go on in the club, guys!"

Again, the 70% that were indexed were 1st order only, meaning synonyms only, no spun HTML, no spun tags, no spun links, no kicked sentences or paragraphs.

They were seriously junior-league, right-out-of-the-box, anybody-can-do-em spins. I am going to mature them pretty soon.

After the seeds mature, I predict, that in time, even people won't be able to tell the difference. It wasn't as hard as I was thinking. When that happens, honestly, search engines won't have chance, especially if I start spinning the media too.

At that point, I spindicate it for a constant influx of relevant, variable-anchor-text, contextual backlinks that are in an article actually worth reading, that EZA, ArticleBase and GoArticles will approve...even though they will never see them.

I know that sounds bold and arrogant, but this methodology is much more powerful that people give it credit for.

Nay-sayers are such simply because they just don't know how to do it.

[thebitbotdotcom]

Oh, and by the way, to anybody who reads this thread, the same goes for press releases, but only if you spindicate (not syndicate) it.

[SEOpsychic]

Originally Posted by markowe

I just find spinning deadly boring, and if you are aiming for a decent style there AREN'T a thousand ways to say the same thing, proper expression is actually quite limiting in some respects. And even when you are VERY careful (and don't fall asleep in the meticulous process) you always miss something and fluff the style or grammar in some way. So i just don't bother spinning these days. I get the backlinks anyway - *shrug*.

i can't agree with you more on this. i'm not a fan of spinning simple.

[mikecole62]

I have used spinner myself and yeah Google does not like them. If you spend time spinning the article you can get underneath Google radar. I stay away from the "black hat" stuff. I got into trouble with E zine article once because of it.

[thebitbotdotcom]

How good is Google at finding spun content?

I just spun an article that I had published on my blog.

Published a snapshot of the spin and Google the first paragraph and Google brought me to an article about Swastikas.

The article was "Four Steps to Power Article Marketing"

Nice job Google.

[thebitbotdotcom]

Originally Posted by mikecole62

I have used spinner myself and yeah Google does not like them. If you spend time spinning the article you can get underneath Google radar. I stay away from the "black hat" stuff. I got into trouble with E zine article once because of it.

Yes, but this thread is not about whether or not Google likes them, it is about whether or not they can detect them.

My data is showing me that they are not as good as people think.

Simple spins, sure, but that is where it seems to stop.

[Stormchaser]

You will be perfectly fine as long as you pay attention to quality, deep spinning.

[mamu]

if you spin well,google can not tell the difference,even a human being can not tell say a article is a spun one if it under good spun.my opinion

[mrdomains]

Interesting post.

I have been doing a lot of work with spun content which is providing good results. I use software as a platform for manual spins and as a synonym library. Basically just to simplify the writing process and with the aim of producing spintax seeds that output quality and highly diversified articles. I do not use any automatic functionality whatsoever which takes a lot of work and concentration but the usability and results easily make it all worthwhile.

If I get the same xx-number of diversified results from my spin seeds as I woud get from telling xx-number of different people to do a manual rewrite of a base article, then I am satisfied.

I totally agree with OP that if you escalate the complexity and readability, then neither Google nor your readers will notice.

[Boris_yo]

What spinning would you suggest? On word-level spinning or nested spinning? Or it does not matter?

[Chris-]

thanks for this info. Really good to know!

Chris-

[thebitbotdotcom]

Originally Posted by Boris_yo

What spinning would you suggest? On word-level spinning or nested spinning? Or it does not matter?

As previously mentioned, you can use software to synonymize it and then manually add nested spinning of HTML, media, tags, anchor text, etc...

Software DRAMATICALLY speeds up the process with respect to the synonymization (it that is even a word) step.

I can produce 30 articles that have higher quality by maturing one seed than just sitting there writing 30 separate articles about the same subject which will have you banging your head on your desk.

Important Note: I don't publish spun content on my own sites, even though I could. All of my articles are hand written. I spindicate mature seeds. It is all about off-page SEO.

[thebitbotdotcom]

Originally Posted by Boris_yo

What spinning would you suggest? On word-level spinning or nested spinning? Or it does not matter?

Sign Up as an SENuke Affiliate and watch his videos and he will tell you EXACTLY what you need to know...

[Boris_yo]

Originally Posted by thebitbotdotcom

As previously mentioned, you can use software to synonymize it and then manually add nested spinning of HTML, media, tags, anchor text, etc...

I do not understand that part. How can you nest spin HTML and media?

[pacesetter007]

This is purely great information going on here. Myth "spoiled" with hard fact cannot be ignored. Who wants to disprove hard facts now?


Tim

[thebitbotdotcom]

Here is an actual example of a spinner that exceeds 50% uniqueness. If a human or Google runs across spin variations of this article on the web they will not be able to tell that it is spun.

Read through a few of them and you will see...Learn Spanish - TheBitBot Spindication / Article Flare Directory

[bappa06]

Yes i'm also did spun article posting on many good article sites. They accepted it. But confused that google implemented anything in their algorithm. Cause detection will degrade ranking.

What do you think, if copyscape will say spun article is unique?

[murrc2]

Google notices spun content when your links have the same anchor text and the same landing page. Check out the article spinner WITH built in link spinner over at SEOCurl...heard a lot of good word going around about it lately and the top SEO folk are using it.

[Domsa]

Originally Posted by yukon

I replied on that other nonsense thread.

Again...

Google doesn't have a clue what spun text is, they have no way to sort text into a logical order (NONE!)!

At best, they can add the same green underlining MS word has. If it has too much % of the text underlined, it could devaluate the link. I've never tested this, but I don't see why they wouldn't implement something like this.