Is there any use for spinning articles?

I agree with hotlinkz and Kecia08. Spinning articles is only going to dimish your writing credibility by producing poorly written versions of your original article.

The best method is syndicating your content to a few trusted sources and hope your article generates enough interest to drive the traffic you're seeking.

Furthermore, if the article and it's contents are merely advertising pitch, you're probably not going to generate much interest anyway. For me, after nearly 20 years on the internet, the minute I detect advertising pitch, I back away.

If you depend on the software to do your spinning, the quality will certainly suffer. However, if you use the software as a tool and select the word and phrase substitutions manually, the quality can be just as good as if you had merely done a rewrite of the article yourself. The trouble with spinning is that too many people think they can get the software to do all of the work for them and end up with good articles. You can't.

There is no possible SEO benefit from spinning the articles.

The link-juice derived from a backlink is not somehow magically "improved" by being attached to spun content rather than to syndicated (unspun) content. This is simply one of the biggest, longest-running, most-widely-believed urban myths of internet marketing there's ever been.

As is so often the case with such misguided beliefs, there's a specific reason for that, of course: there's a huge industry "out there" (and sometimes even "in here") promoting spinning software, and it very reasonably fears for its survival if people realise that spinning affords them no SEO benefits at all. For this reason, its sales pages typically perpetuate and propagate the complete myth that "duplicate content" and "syndicated content" are the same thing, and sometimes even (but just for its more gullible audience!) that your own site will somehow be "penalised" by Google if you use syndicated (unspun) articles.

As you can see explained in detail, in many threads here, far from attracting any "penalties", syndication is, in fact, the exact business model of some of the more experienced, successful and professional article marketing Warriors.

The reality is that you'll get the identical backlink if you simply leave out the "spinning" stage and paste in the content unchanged. :rolleyes:

Whatever benefits people imagine they may be deriving by "spinning" their content, SEO and backlinks are clearly not among them.

Those interested in a more detailed explanation can do a lot worse than read all the incidental conversations/chat in this thread: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...eza-first.html . There'll be very, very few basic questions one can have about article directory marketing which aren't answered in there.

As explained here in many other threads, in reality, it seems to me (opinion only, here, but it's well observed opinion and shared by many) that most people who fail at "article marketing" tend to fail in more or less the same way, and it's a way broadly characterised by ...

(i) depending on article directories for traffic and backlinks;

(ii) using "spinning" and/or "mass-submission" software;

(iii) using a "rinse and repeat" model of article directory marketing;

(iv) writing/submitting large numbers of shorter articles which are sometimes "salesy" in tone and have a prominent "call to action" in the resource box.

You can be almost certain, every single time you see one of the ever-increasing threads we have here with titles like "Article Marketing Doesn't Work Any More" or "I'm Not Sure About Article Marketing Any More", that the person starting it off has been doing at least three of the four things mentioned above.

In contrast, most people who succeed at article marketing succeed in their own slightly different ways, a little harder to describe succinctly, but often (I don't say "always", of course) characterised by ...

(a) avoiding all the above (for example, writing much longer articles without an obviously sales-motivated call to action in the resource box, etc. etc.);

(b) involving article syndication in their business model;

(c) building an asset-based business which produces gradually increasing residual income from work already done.

One thing's absolutely certain, and this forum's increasingly full of the evidence for it: people (like myself) who are switching from "spinning" to "not spinning" are definitely not switching back.

Thanks for your insight. I'll be sure to ignore your posts in the future.

She's 100% wrong but you've no way to test it and you don't know how much link juice is passed?

Can you explain how that makes her 100% wrong?

Not here to argue Ken, I'm ever so bored with these arguements anyway.

I'm also sure she's well aware that you, and those that thank you do it very well but you only have to read most of the reasons "the rest" spin to realise they're doing it to avoid a myth and because they think those directory backlinks are of such high quality.

I'm not talking about you, Kurt, Terry or that annoying orange but most of the ill informed people, such as Ganang, who spins to escape the duplicate content myth and to get those all important directory backlinks as though they're coming from the front page of the White House. Lets remind ourselves of that gem of a post...

I love that last sentence.

This is where you are wrong, once again, Ms Smith. Whether the 'target' as you
say is search engines or readers - and the best spun content is good enough
for both, there are plenty of benefits.

You are assuming all of it ends up in the SI - it does not. The rest is just repeating
what you said, before.

You are wrong, Ms Smith. You ignore the truth, and you are misinforming people.


Ken