Seriously, why spin?

I know that many here rely on spinning, whether through doing it it themselves, owning and selling their spinning software, or affiliating with people that do....I haven't made very many friends when I speak out so much about something that makes a small handful alot of money. I think it's an absolutely horrible thing, and, I believe Panda is proof that it shouldn't be done.

*Flak vest on*

Fire away. lol.

Spun articles can be successfully submitted to poor, low-quality article directories, but equally the same article could have been used unspun in those same low-quality article directories with the same benefits. The only real benefit is the backlink, and the backlink is exactly the same whether the content's spun or just syndicated, and whether the page is in Google's main index or the supplemental index.

This is traditionally a subject on which people's opinions differ quite widely, because it tends frequently to be discussed by people who don't quite appreciate the differences between "duplicate" and "syndicated" content, and their significance (and even by some other people who don't want others to appreciate those differences!).

It's one of the subjects on which two distinct groups, definable as (a) "people using article marketing" and (b) people making a good living from article marketing, have views and opinions on which they can never agree. In many discussions of the subject, the first group are in the great majority and theirs - however mistaken - tends understandably to be the viewpoint that comes across as "the consensus opinion" on such questions. Especially when continually reinforced by those with a direct financial interest in promoting spinning, some of whose sales pages are noted for perpetuating and propagating some of the more grotesque urban myths of internet marketing: I've even seen it claimed (though perhaps only by those with a financial interest) that "duplicate content" and "syndicated content" are the same thing, in Google's eyes!

It's easy (to the point of being trite) for marketers to observe that they've "spun their way to any number of Google page 1 listings", of course: but this in itself proves nothing, without being compared with how that can be done just as easily with syndicated (i.e. unspun) articles - typically, they don't tell you that, though.

One thing's for sure, as the collective posts in any number of "spinning threads" here will confirm for you: people who are switching from spun to syndicated content aren't switching back.

Thanks for the input. The method you use has been coming into popularity (a little) lately and it seems like an pretty decent concession between "orignal" content and mass submission from a quality point of view. I suppose the primary reason for doing this would be creating linkwheels (please correct me if I'm sounding silly).

This seems like a great way to keep both the search engines (backlinks from link wheels) and human readers (decent quality content) happy.

With this method do you submit each article manually? Because I don't believe that any spinner is actually able to produce spintax that will only select a few paragrahs for each article.

You guys work way too hard. All I do is write an article and submit it to an article directory or two (sometimes), put it on an RSS feed where it goes to thousands of syndicated subscribers, and some additional thousands are delivered by autoresponder and fax. Then I go out and play golf. The only things that spin are my balls.

Marketers tend to spin their original articles to save some time instead of making a new one. It can work but hardly. Original content still stands rather that spun articles which are usually easily detected that results to not being that helpful at all.