131 replies
Hi guys,

Can someone explain to me why articles need to be spun, as i see it even spun articles can by syndicated on other webpages/blogs so you are getting duplicate content right there, does this mean that you lose the backlink power if someone decides to duplicate your article?

Thanks

Mick
#articles #spinning
  • Profile picture of the author Ross Cohen
    Non-unique articles won't hurt your site, but they won't help it compared to unique articles either. Generally when multiple people post an article, the first to post it will receive the benefit and higher-ranking in search engines. If the article is spun, it will then be considered unique, thus providing greater benefit. Plus, some article directories require the article to be unique so if it isn't, it can't even be posted there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864112].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author NicoleBeckett
      Originally Posted by Ross Cohen View Post

      If the article is spun, it will then be considered unique
      It will also, in many cases, be considered crap :p I know, I know, there tons and tons of people who advocate spinning and swear on their grandma's cat that their spun content comes out looking just fine. In many (not all) cases, these are the people who are also selling spinning software

      The truth is, Mick, you don't need a spinner for any reason. If you're publishing quality content that's good enough to get syndicated, you're going to get plenty of traffic and links from it. Shoving it through a spinner is only going to lower its quality, damage your name if it's really bad, and waste your time.

      You'd be wise to search the forum for threads related to the syndicated vs. duplicate content debate. You'll find that syndicated content does not equal duplicate content (As Ross points out, the first site to get the article indexed typically gets a "boost", but other sites aren't penalized in any way for publishing it later)
      Signature
      Sick of blending in with the crowd? Ready to stand ahead of the pack? The right content writing services can get you there...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864603].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Coutts
      Originally Posted by Ross Cohen View Post

      If the article is spun, it will then be considered unique ...
      Yes, but unique crap, unfortunately.
      Signature
      Write System - superior web content
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870333].message }}
  • With a spinner you can spin paragraphs, sentences and words so you can end up with many, many unique articles. Spinners are not perfect, and I am not a huge fan, but they can have some benefits.
    Signature

    PM Me Now!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864540].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ddshosting
      Originally Posted by Resale Rights Ninja View Post

      With a spinner you can spin paragraphs, sentences and words so you can end up with many, many unique articles. Spinners are not perfect, and I am not a huge fan, but they can have some benefits.
      One technique I have seen, is to use Google translate to convert the text into Latin and then back to English to get a new article. What other methods / sites would you recommend?

      On a funny note, here is a site I built which plays on the flaws of this method:

      Trinslate dot com
      Signature
      SEO My SEO - Visit for tips and valuable long-term search engine optimization techniques.
      Web Hosting and SEO Services in the UK - Business class web hosting and domain registration.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866483].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NickVCover
    I read an article somewhere that explained duplicate content rather clearly:

    The same information multiple places on your site is duplicate content.
    The same article spread around the internet is not duplicate content. (it is syndication)

    As an example, what I read pointed to the Associated Press. One of their writers will create an article that will then get posted all over the place - that's the whole point of the AP! They do not try to create 900 versions of the same article. So why shouldn't you, an authority on your topic (we hope), use the same model?

    Now it is true that you may not get the bot-juice from one good article submitted to 200 sites as you will from 200 crap articles submitted to 200 sites, but one good article will by itself drive traffic to you. If you are in it for the long haul, your reputation does matter.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864829].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
    You don't need a spinner, and in most cases, a spinner spits out garbage content. Even the best ones still do. It is almost impossible for a machine to understand the delicate intricacies of human speech and grammar.

    There are some advantages like making more unique articles out of one, but I advise spinning manually so you control the variables rather than spinning through an automatic program.
    Signature

    No signature here today!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864845].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author genuine86
    Any recommendations on a great Article Spinner? The only one I've used is Unique Article Wizard.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864853].message }}
  • Yeah most spinners suck. I used to hate them with a passion. First of all most create garbage. The ones that don't have to be worked through manually, and it is tedious and time consuming.

    The Best Spinner is truly the best one out there, but like others have been saying you don't need it.

    Spinners do go well with automated backlinking software like SEONukeX and SEOLinkVine and to me that is a valid reason to use them. You can get super spun articles from article builder which works well when used in conjunction with seonukex and seolinkvine.

    Personally though I am not into seo or blogging so much anymore. The money is in building your list, product creation and having affiliates promote for you. If you focus on those three things I promise you will do well.
    Signature

    PM Me Now!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864906].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by MickYoung View Post

    Can someone explain to me why articles need to be spun
    Hi Mick, if the thread's intended as a sort of "consideration of spinning", I can suggest six items to read through, which may help that ...

    (i) This post explains the benefits of spinning;

    (ii) This post, and its links, explain how article directories really work and why they exist;

    (iii) The first half (or so) of this thread contains a good discussion of what you can gain from spinning articles;

    (iv) The advice on this subject given by so many people throughout most of this thread has been helpful to many here;

    (v) On the meaning and significance of "duplicate content", in this context, this little post from expert article marketer Anne Pottinger includes direct quotations from Google's WebMaster Central Blog on the subject (not easy to find a more authoritative source than that!);

    (vi) This little article is also a very useful and accurate explanation of the subject.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864997].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
      Thoughts from the peanut gallery here:

      Article spinning is not a long term solution.

      Anything created by an algorithm can be detected by an algorithm. Although I'm brand new to IM and am still in a learning stage, all one needs to do is look at the direction of Google to predict their next steps. Make no mistake that they are very aware of article spinning and I cannot help but assume they view it as a way to game their system.

      I do not think it outside the realm of possibility that at some point Google's algo will start ignoring links from spun articles in their site ranking, maybe even penalize sites that have links from spun articles. Nor do I think it outside the realm of probability that folks at Google have already discussed, amongst themselves, ways to combat spun articles and those articles being used to enhance page rank.

      Do what you will, as life has informed me we all have much more glass in our house than we realize and should bite our tongue's more often than not when being judgemental, but I, from my non-experience and lofty high horse, place article spinning in the same category as paying for backlinks at places like BLR - cheesey.

      And, ultimately, be it 6 months or 6 years, will result not only in an ineffectual means to drive traffic, but also a corresponding penalty.
      Signature
      One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

      - Seldom Seen Smith
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865415].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Makota
    Banned
    Most spinners do suck. However, I would watch any product by Johnathan Ledger. He is the only one that seems to be spending time and money to fix that issue. I think he has the best spinners... haha.. get it?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865437].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ashley C
    Here's the thing. 10 unique articles, in my opinion, are better than an article with 9 spun versions.

    If you spin an article, you need to rewrite the whole thing manually for it to be readable and of good quality. Otherwise, you have to use spinning software, which makes it unreadable and therefore bad quality. This can easily ruin your reputation.

    The same amount of energy can be put into writing further unique articles. Once an article of yours exists, you don't need duplicates. That's what links and syndication are for.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865578].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Ashley C View Post

      Here's the thing. 10 unique articles, in my opinion, are better than an article with 9 spun versions.
      This. Although the whole issue that led to the popularity of spinners in the first place is that some writers don't want to put in the work it takes to write those unique articles.

      Another aspect is the perceived "link juice" that spun articles gather. Don't really get the logic behind that either.

      I come back and it's the same discussion as when I left. I love ya warrior forum, never change .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866301].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865650].message }}
    • Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

      It's just your opinion. My point is that 1000's right-spun articles are 100-times better than 10 "unique" ones.
      I agree with you on that.
      Signature

      PM Me Now!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865703].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
      Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

      My point is that 1000's right-spun articles are 100-times better than 10 "unique" ones.
      How and why?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865714].message }}
      • Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

        How and why?
        Because you have a 100 backlinks instead of 10, and they are all original content.
        Signature

        PM Me Now!

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865760].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
        Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

        How and why?
        How: write the Spintax article by yourself using your own brain (hint: there is no supercomputer that can compete with an average single human).

        Why: because 1000/10=100. Simple arithmetic, nothing else.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865773].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author danr62
          Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

          How: write the by yourself using your own brain (hint: there is no supercomputer that can compete with a simple human).

          Why: because 1000/10=100. Simple arithmetic, nothing else.
          So what? 10 articles syndicated to 100 quality outlets > 1000 spun articles (even if well spun) submitted to sites nobody but the search engines see or article directories filled with ads and links that pull the readers in 1000 different directions.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865864].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
          Originally Posted by Resale Rights Ninja View Post

          Because you have a 100 backlinks instead of 10, and they are all original content.
          No you don't. We were talking about numbers of articles, not numbers of backlinks. You may assume that more articles = more backlinks, but that isn't so if most are never published and the ones that are end up on low-quality sites. More than that, spinning doesn't create original content; it creates unique content of essentially the same substance (thus not original at all).

          Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

          How: write the by yourself using your own brain (hint: there is no supercomputer that can compete with a simple human).

          Why: because 1000/10=100. Simple arithmetic, nothing else.
          I understand why "human spinning" is superior to auto-spinning, yes. The "how and why" referred only to why having masses of articles is necessarily more beneficial for SEO than having fewer. See above ^.

          Syndication of just one high-quality article across numerous reputable sites can bring in the same or a greater number of stronger backlinks than masses of spun, repetitive articles sitting about doing nothing much in particular.

          Publishers also recognise articles of identical substance, spun or not, and aren't likely to post the same thing more than once.

          So I ask again (rhetorically, if necessary): how is having tons of spun articles better than having a handful of original ones?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865877].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Resale Rights Ninja View Post

        Because you have a 100 backlinks instead of 10, and they are all original content.
        <sigh>

        Do you honestly imagine that the backlink attached to a particular piece of content on a particular page of the web somehow, magically, becomes "worth more" because the content hasn't previously been published anywhere else, or because it's indexed in the main index rather than in the supplemental index?! Even the people selling the damn spinning/spamming software aren't alleging that ...

        Do you honestly imagine that the 90 extra backlinks are actually worth anything in the first place? Even before Google's 2011 Panda updates devalued all the article directories so much, standard SEO textbook writers were explaining why 50,000 - 100,000 of those backlinks were typically worth about the same as one backlink from a relevant authority site.

        Quantity alone produces nothing, on the benefit front; quality alone produces plenty (including, eventually, quantity).

        Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

        Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

        My point is that 1000's right-spun articles are 100-times better than 10 "unique" ones.
        How and why?
        The voice of reason will always be drowned by the voice of commercial interest, "spinning plug-ins", and so on. As the saying goes, "Good luck, Jim!" (not to mention "Rather you than I"). :p
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865910].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author the goat
    If you're spinning you're spamming. Not to say it doesn't work, the quality-quantity argument will rage on forever. I personally go with quality, as it seems to last longer.
    Signature
    Affordable, authority level unique content for 2 cents a word
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865725].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
      Originally Posted by the goat View Post

      If you're spinning you're spamming.
      Who said that? So if you are rewriting 10x times an article manually you are not spamming? Hmm, very interesting theory however )
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865787].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author the goat
        Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

        Who said that? So if you are rewriting 10x times an article manually you are not spamming? Hmm, very interesting theory however )
        Show me a spun article that a human being interested in a subject will read all the way through and be satisfied with.

        If it is not for human consumption, but for search engines, links etc. it is spam.
        Signature
        Affordable, authority level unique content for 2 cents a word
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865808].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
          Originally Posted by the goat View Post

          Show me a spun article that a human being interested in a subject will read all the way through and be satisfied with.
          I can't show you anything. Write your own article using Spintax, spin it 1000x times and see by yourself.

          P.S. Do you know what Spintax is? Your posts made me think that you don't.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865826].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author the goat
            Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

            The best spinners is you own brain
            No kidding, but done by a brain it is re-writing, not spinning. We are talking about spinning.

            Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

            I can't show you anything.
            OK then.
            Signature
            Affordable, authority level unique content for 2 cents a word
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865855].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
              Originally Posted by the goat View Post

              No kidding, but done by a brain it is re-writing, not spinning. We are talking about spinning.
              What is the difference between Spintax spinning and rewriting? Please answer to this simple question.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865905].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author the goat
                Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

                What is the difference between Spintax spinning and rewriting? Please answer to this simple question.
                Now we are arguing semantics. By use of the word "spinning" everyone in this thread seems to realize we are talking about automated programs but you.

                Spintax is just dumb, it is a made up word for people in the spinning business to humanize their system so it seems less spammy.

                If you know Syntax, you don't need Spintax. Also I am on record in my first post as saying spinning works, it just doesn't work as good as original written content, if you say it does then you 100% don't know what you are talking about.
                Signature
                Affordable, authority level unique content for 2 cents a word
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865952].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
                  Originally Posted by the goat View Post

                  Now we are arguing semantics. By use of the word "spinning" everyone in this thread seems to realize we are talking about automated programs but you.
                  That's a very wrong assumption. There are many ways of machine spinning (synonymizing, content expanding, comments generation etc), but I'm clearly stated that I'm talking about human-written articles in Spintax.

                  Originally Posted by the goat View Post

                  Spintax is just dumb
                  Spintax like any other language (English, Russian, Assembler, C/C++ or Java) can not be dumb. It's just a tool which can do amazing things in the right hands.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866029].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                    CyberSEO,

                    It's pretty clear from your posts here, the nonsense published on your cyberseo.net site and the description of your product(s) that the concept of derivative-work liability (a form of copyright infringement) has never entered your consciousness.

                    Either you're innocently (but not inexcusably) clueless or you have no respect for other people's intellectual property. Either way, you have no business using this forum as a platform to misinform and encourage others to engage in acts of illegality (in some jurisdictions).

                    It's just a tool which can do amazing things in the right hands.
                    Oh, yeah... sort of like a knife in the hands of a crazed lunatic can do "amazing things".

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866318].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
                      Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

                      CyberSEO,

                      It's pretty clear from your posts here, the nonsense published on your cyberseo.net site and the description of your product(s) that the concept of derivative-work liability (a form of copyright infringement) has never entered your consciousness.
                      Do you want to discuss my site here? Isn't it against the board rules? I don't want to be banned for that. Do you?

                      As about copyright infringement so I never come into collision with it, simple because I do not use any copyrighted content (never was and never will be). Any more questions?
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866566].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
                      Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

                      Either you're innocently (but not inexcusably) clueless or you have no respect for other people's intellectual property. Either way, you have no business using this forum as a platform to misinform and encourage others to engage in acts of illegality (in some jurisdictions).
                      Dude I don't know who you are to talk with me about illegality. I'm the one who invented the concept of Morphing RSS Feeds (google about it) which is intended to allow copyright owners to legally distribute their content via affiliate networks and promote their products in a Panda-safe way. Hey, just break the capsule and look at the real wold! It's much more attractive than you thought - believe me!
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866618].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                        Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

                        Do you want to discuss my site here? Isn't it against the board rules? I don't want to be banned for that. Do you?

                        As about copyright infringement so I never come into collision with it, simple because I do not use any copyrighted content (never was and never will be). Any more questions?
                        Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

                        Dude I don't know who you are to talk with me about illegality. I'm the one who invented the concept of Morphing RSS Feeds (google about it) which is intended to allow copyright owners to legally distribute their content via affiliate networks and promote their products in a Panda-safe way. Hey, just break the capsule and look at the real wold! It's must more attractive than you thought - believe me!

                        Calm down buster, and while doing that, please find it within yourself to pardon me for making assumptions about the ethics and motivations of someone who comes here talking utter codswallop about the need for and merits of spinning; and about its alleged SEO benefits, while refusing to seriously address any of the questions asked of him in that regard; and all the while promoting a pro-spinning product in his forum signature, the official site of which, in outlining its functionality, details how it can suck in content through RSS feeds and spin the text to create new, unique articles - which, the last time I checked, without a licence or the express permission of the copyright holder could very well constitute copyright infringement on the grounds of its being derivative works.

                        If that isn't what it does, or isn't what it's intended for, my apologies. You certainly weren't quick to stress that on your site. It's always possible that my imagination got the better of me, of course, and you might just happen to be a plain ol' hokum-talking spammer.

                        At the very least, all of that probably falls within the realm of "black-hat methods" (?) which are prohibited on this forum, or certainly looked upon with disdain.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866881].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
                          Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

                          At the very least, all of that probably falls within the realm of "black-hat methods" (?) which are prohibited on this forum, or certainly looked upon with disdain.
                          Why do you answer to my post before you read it? Did you find out what Morphing RSS Feeds are? How do they serve to the copyright holders (even spun ones) and why they can't be considered as "black-hat methods"? Find it out and be back to continue the discussion.

                          Thank you.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866947].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                            Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

                            Why do you answer my post without reading it? Did you find out what Morphing Feeds are? How do they serve to copyright holders and and why they can't be considered as "black-hat methods"? Find it out and be back to continue the discussion.

                            Thank you.
                            Yes, I did, but can't make head nor tail of it. I guess that's the price primitive folk such as myself pay when we're distracted by "morphing tittles" and the like.

                            More seriously, as for "continuing the discussion", I'm still awaiting a full, comprehensive response to my earlier post where I asked why more spun/unique articles are necessarily better than fewer non-spun articles, specifically as they relate to backlinks and off-site SEO.

                            But as none of your predecessors have to date tackled that question head on and brought closure to this perennial debate, I'm not holding my breath.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867056].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author danr62
                            Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

                            Why do you answer to my post before you read it? Did you find out what Morphing RSS Feeds are? How do they serve to the copyright holders (even spun ones) and why they can't be considered as "black-hat methods"? Find it out and be back to continue the discussion.

                            Thank you.
                            Your cyberSEO plugin is doing nothing more stealing other people's content and spinning it. This is a copyright infringement. Just because you modify someone's content by spinning it does not mean you are not violating their copyright.

                            In other words, to dumb it down for you, rewriting other people's content is copywright infringement.

                            Now if someone uses a plugin to provide "morphed feeds" to others then that is another story.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867136].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
                              Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

                              Your cyberSEO plugin is doing nothing more stealing other people's content and spinning it. This is a copyright infringement. Just because you modify someone's content by spinning it does not mean you are not violating their copyright.
                              My plugin is intended to syndicate sponsored (provided by affiliate programs as a promotional tool) RSS and XML content and most of my affiliates (there are many WarriorFourum members among them) use it in that proper way, because it allows to make money and do not violate someones copyrights. Just FYI, all the resources which traffic stats I've posted above, use content provided by affiliate programs only - no single stolen word there.

                              There are many customers that use my plugin to sell goods from Amazon and various XML shops which XML feeds are being legally used to generate the blog posts.

                              On the other hand, there is a lot of content which is free to-copy (e.g. YouTube videos - they have special embeddable codes if you forget).

                              Also there are many sources that also allow to re-distribute their content for free under the GPL license (yes you are even allowed to spun it). If you can't find them, you just can use Google and Wikipedia

                              Actually the statements like yours could be considered offending, but it seems like you are just a type of people who thinks about murder when he sees a penknife. IMHO.

                              P.S. And once again, this thread is not about my plugin. It's about article sniping. In my very first post I gave the link to a freeware online service that allows to spin your own articles written in Spintax. Why you decided to switch to my commercial product? Why don't just say "thank you" for the useful link? What's wrong with you, guys?
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870171].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
              Originally Posted by the goat View Post

              OK then.
              Man, nobody will post here the links to their Web resources that make a coin. If you want I can post here the Webalizer stats of a few my autoblogs that even don't use a human spinning (all content is simple automatically synonymized there). Do you really need that?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865983].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mukluknation
    I have never spun an article in my life and I am doing just fine marketing-wise. Sometimes though, when I get super frustrated and bored with writing new content, I daydream about spinning a thousand articles for a year and be done with it. In that case, what are the best spinners?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865741].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jerry310
    I always try to re-summarize my content rather than spin it which is kinda the same thing. But at least I can control the human readability factor much better.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865867].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AnmolJ
    Article Spinning Is Crap!
    We Should Just Write Our Articles Ourselves!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865954].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author the goat
    Ha ha, ok. It must be tough to sell your spinning plug in without giving any examples of spun articles.

    Spintax is a language like Quidditch is a sport.
    Signature
    Affordable, authority level unique content for 2 cents a word
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866132].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
      Originally Posted by the goat View Post

      Ha ha, ok. It must be tough to sell your spinning plug.
      You are very inattentive person ) Haven't you noticed a link I gave to a 100% free online Spintax spinner service a few posts above (here it is again: Free article spinner). Can you please explain how does it related to my commercial WordPress plugin? I must be an idiot to promote a commercial script via its freeware copy which has absolutely the same features.

      Any logic? Please.

      Originally Posted by the goat View Post

      Spintax is a language
      Yes it is. Especially the nested one.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866216].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author the goat
        Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

        Wrong again. You are very inattentive person. Haven't you noticed a link I gave to a 100% free online Spintax spinner service a few posts above (here it is especially for you: Free article spinner). Can you please explain how does it related to my commercial WordPress plugin? I must be an idiot to promote a commercial script via its freeware copy.

        Any logic? Please.
        OK, here it is. Since you say I am inattentive I'll spell it out for you. You must need Spintax because you don't have a very good grasp on English. Sometimes us native speakers use the same words with different definitions. For instance: To "sell" your spinning service also means "convince" in the context it was used.

        I am sorry you don't understand simple English concepts (probably why you need Spintax) but it is obvious you have no grasp on the language by the fact that you are the ONLY person in this thread that thinks that when we speak of spinning, we mean humans doing it.
        Signature
        Affordable, authority level unique content for 2 cents a word
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866299].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Resale Rights Ninja View Post

      Because you have a 100 backlinks instead of 10, and they are all original content.
      But they're not original content. It is just the same ten things said a different way. Ten times per topic to be specific. I agree with another poster who said it is spamming. Might be a clever way to spam; but doesn't change what it is at the core.

      Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

      I can't show you anything.
      Aaaand /thread. Wait, you kept going? *Sigh*



      Originally Posted by AnmolJ View Post

      Article Spinning Is Crap!
      We Should Just Write Our Articles Ourselves!
      A novel concept indeed :rolleyes:.

      Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

      Man, nobody will post here the links to their Web resources that make a coin. If you want I can post here the Webalizer stats of a few my autoblogs that even don't even use a human spinning (all content is simple automatically synonymized there). Do you really need that?
      Well, yeah I personally would like to see that, as nothing else you have said has given your theory credibility in this thread.

      Originally Posted by the goat View Post

      Ha ha, ok. It must be tough to sell your spinning plug in without giving any examples of spun articles.

      Spintax is a language like Quidditch is a sport.

      Hey, Quidditch is a sport.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866735].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author the goat
        Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

        Ha ha, is that you in the yellow at the 45 second mark?
        Signature
        Affordable, authority level unique content for 2 cents a word
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866766].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Tadresources View Post

          Unique content is always more valuable, even if it's lower quality and highly spun.
          Er, no. "Lower quality and highly spun" content is a fast way to a short career when it comes to content production.

          Originally Posted by the goat View Post

          Ha ha, is that you in the yellow at the 45 second mark?
          Just a random video; but truth be told that is the kind of thing I would do. I'm an attention seeker :p.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866802].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

        Originally Posted by Resale Rights Ninja View Post

        Because you have a 100 backlinks instead of 10, and they are all original content.
        But they're not original content.
        Of course they're not.

        But you're being a little unkind to the RR Ninja, there, Joe, because you're deliberately choosing to use words with legitimate and accurate meanings. And that's not altogether "sporting", in these conversations, you know? That's a little bit provocative ...

        People with the RR Ninja's opinions on this subject characteristically don't trouble themselves by distinguishing between "original content" and "unique content" (nor indeed between "duplicate content" and "syndicated content", or many other niceties of such huge significance to Google or anyone else). After all, if they had ever learned to do that, they wouldn't still have those opinions, would they? :p
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866787].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author the goat
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post


          People with the RR Ninja's opinions on this subject characteristically don't bother to distinguish between "original content" and "unique content" (nor indeed between "duplicate content" and "syndicated content", or many other such niceties). After all, if they did that, they wouldn't still have those opinions, would they? :p
          And they use terms like "spun by hand". Ummm... "human spinning" has been happening in schools for years before the internet, it is called plagiarism.
          Signature
          Affordable, authority level unique content for 2 cents a word
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866818].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          Of course they're not.

          But you're being a little unkind to the RR Ninja, there, Joe, because you're deliberately choosing to use words with legitimate and accurate meanings. And that's not altogether "sporting", in these conversations, you know? That's a little bit provocative ...

          People with the RR Ninja's opinions on this subject characteristically don't trouble themselves by distinguishing between "original content" and "unique content" (nor indeed between "duplicate content" and "syndicated content", or many other such niceties). After all, if they did that, they wouldn't still have those opinions, would they? :p
          Lol, not intentionally being a provocateur, I would rather get my feet wet again before ruffling feathers around here .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866901].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
        Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

        Aaaand /thread. Wait, you kept going? *Sigh*
        ...
        Well, yeah I personally would like to see that
        So you wanna see? There is no "/thread" then? LOL

        Ok, here they are (some old ones, some were launched just a couple of months ago):













        Questions?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866890].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
    Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

    Oh, yeah... sort of like a knife in the hands of a crazed lunatic can do "amazing things".
    Did you say it about Spintax? Are you serious?

    Originally Posted by the goat View Post

    OK, here it is. Since you say I am inattentive I'll spell it out for you. You must need Spintax because you don't have a very good grasp on English.
    Spintax works in any language (English, Dutch, German, French, Russian, Hindi... doesn't matter). So I didn't get your point.

    Originally Posted by the goat View Post

    I am sorry you don't understand simple English concepts
    There is nothing to be sorry about. Really. Educate yourself and you'll be fine. Just believe me

    P.S. I'm working online only since the end of 90s.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866579].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cashcow
    Most spun articles are crap.

    BUT

    Spun articles don't necessarily have to be crappy if you do them "by hand".

    However, that takes an awful long time and its a lot of tedious boring work. With the way that SEO is going now, it seems your time is better spend writing killer articles that approach your topic from a unique viewpoint because these are the ones that other people are going to want to syndicate for you.

    No one is going to want to put 10 versions of an article that say the same exact thing on their blog no matter how nicely it reads.

    Lee
    Signature
    Gone Fishing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866689].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
      Originally Posted by cashcow View Post

      Spun articles don't necessarily have to be crappy if you do them "by hand"....However, that takes an awful long time and its a lot of tedious boring work.
      Glad to see here a person I can agree with on 100%.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866755].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author James B
      Originally Posted by cashcow View Post

      Most spun articles are crap.

      BUT

      Spun articles don't necessarily have to be crappy if you do them "by hand".

      However, that takes an awful long time and its a lot of tedious boring work. With the way that SEO is going now, it seems your time is better spend writing killer articles that approach your topic from a unique viewpoint because these are the ones that other people are going to want to syndicate for you.

      No one is going to want to put 10 versions of an article that say the same exact thing on their blog no matter how nicely it reads.

      Lee
      What you said is on point. Keyword: "by hand". Haha, so if you fail to do this, and your lazy your just going to get some bad spun article. Its like shooting yourself, because you "wasted time" in all the efforts of trying to use every synonym in the book hoping to be a "10".
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867683].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author simona86
      Spun articles are never a great idea in my opinion. Considering Google takes grammar, spelling, and paragraph structure into consideration when delivering relevant results, spun articles don't compare to human-written content.

      Google's job is to deliver results that visitors will be happy with; that's their job as a search engine. Their algorithm is heavily designed to spot cookie-cutter articles.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871211].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author StunningWarrior
        Originally Posted by rooze View Post

        I'm not sure I took away the same conclusions from this thread. I didn't see the attacks or emotions to the same extent as you, perhaps.
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        I didn't, either.
        Well given what I wrote I'm certainly not going to start an argument to disagree with you two

        It's very easy to read into forum postings emotions and meaning that are not there. If I misinterpreted then I was wrong.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5872145].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tadresources
    Unique content is always more valuable, even if it's lower quality and highly spun.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866696].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
      Originally Posted by Tadresources View Post

      Unique content is always more valuable, even if it's lower quality and highly spun.
      Just FYI: unique and spun are not antonyms.

      Originally Posted by jasono View Post

      I think TBS would be a great tool for spinning
      It wont because it's automatic.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866764].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Tadresources View Post

      Unique content is always more valuable, even if it's lower quality and highly spun.
      To be honest, it really scares me that people can actually believe that.

      I don't know which is more dispiriting: the fact that people can actually believe it, or the fact that they're willing to say it in public and potentially encourage others gullible enough to believe it, too.

      Still, that clarifies your opinion on the ever-increasing number of us here who are building big businesses and accumulating growing monthly residual income through high-quality article syndication, anyway: every single one of us (whose entire businesses are built on the fact that the exact opposite of that is true) must be confabulating our entire business model and successes, I suppose?!

      And all those people using "unique" (spun) but low-quality content and mass-submission techniques, who start off all those countless threads here with titles like "Article Marketing Is Dead": that's all a huge coincidence and they've just been "extremely unlucky in exactly the same way but for no discernible reason at all", or something, have they?!

      And people actually believe this?!

      Scary ...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866866].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Devin X
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        To be honest, it really scares me that people can actually believe that.

        I don't know which is more dispiriting: the fact that people can actually believe it, or the fact that they're willing to say it in public and potentially encourage others gullible enough to believe it, too.

        Still, that clarifies your opinion on the ever-increasing number of us here who are building big businesses and accumulating growing monthly residual income through high-quality article syndication, anyway: every single one of us (whose entire businesses are built on the fact that the exact opposite of that is true) must be confabulating our entire business model and successes, I suppose?!

        And all those people using "unique" (spun) but low-quality content and mass-submission techniques, who start off all those countless threads here with titles like "Article Marketing Is Dead": that's all a huge coincidence and they've just been "extremely unlucky in exactly the same way but for no discernible reason at all", or something, have they?!

        And people actually believe this?!

        Scary ...

        Final word: It's a fact that spinning articles is (1) worthless, (2) plagiarism, and in many cases (3) copyright infringement. At its best, it is foolish laziness. At its worst, it's illegal.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867176].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author cashcow
          Originally Posted by TheRealDudeman View Post

          Final word: It's a fact that spinning articles is (1) worthless, (2) plagiarism, and in many cases (3) copyright infringement. At its best, it is foolish laziness. At its worst, it's illegal.

          This is only true if the person stole the seed article from someone else. Not everyone that spins does that - some people actually write their own seed article and others use PLR.
          Signature
          Gone Fishing
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867507].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
            Originally Posted by cashcow View Post

            This is only true if the person stole the seed article from someone else. Not everyone that spins does that - some people actually write their own seed article and others use PLR.
            Period.

            Thank you cashcow!

            P.S. 2others: Spintax spinning has nothing to deal with synonymizing. You are trying to argue on things you have no idea about.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870222].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
              Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

              Period.

              Personally to me this thread ends right here. Thank you cashcow!
              The first words on your site, in your signature are the this...

              After launch of the Panda algorithm, Google started to ban those sites/blogs that contain duplicated (non-unique) content.
              I'm not starting an arguement with you, you seem to have got very stressed over this thread alone so far but what exactly do you mean by that?

              I'm just intrigued by your use of the word banned. Depending on what people believe, it could mean it's put in the supplemental index, it could mean it's banned from the SERPS altogether. It seems rather vague.

              I'm also intrigued by your views on YouTube. How can you be sure that the person that put the video on YouTube had any right in the first place to do so? I'm just pointing out that having an embed code doesn't mean the person that uploaded it is a law abiding saint.

              Now don't get all stressed, these are just simple questions and I'm interested in your answer.

              Apologies my first question is about your plugin but you could always disable your signature before you post if you don't want it to be drawn into the discussion.
              Signature

              Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870308].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
                Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                I'm also intrigued by your views on YouTube. How can you be sure that the person that put the video on YouTube had any right in the first place to do so? I'm just pointing out that having an embed code doesn't mean the person that uploaded it is a law abiding saint.
                If video was uploaded illegally, it will be removed from YouTube and thus it will not show on my site. I thought this is quite obvious. If some video is not allowed for embedding, it won't allow me to embed it. That's also obvious. Right?

                As about the mentioned YouTube demo. I've disallowed its indexing via robots.txt because my site has started receiving tons of irrelevant SE traffic winch I don't want, like "funny animals". "funny videos" and "banned commercial", instead of "wordpress", "plugin", "autoblogging" etc. This is how Google reacted to the content syndicated from YouTube. In my case it was rated better than my own hand-written articles on the same site...

                Originally Posted by John Coutts View Post

                Yes, but unique crap, unfortunately.
                ...like this one:
                If {you want|your main goal is to have{ only| } } {quality|high quality|readable|{ { really|absolutely|100%} unique } } content on your {site|website} then you {have to|must} write articles {instead {of taking help of|using|relying upon}|{manually|by yourself} using {Spintax|special {format|syntax} {that|which is called "Spintax" and} is {invented|intended} to {create|generate} {or spun|unique} {articles|content } } and spin them {using special|with {freeware|old good } spinning {software|scripts|tools}.
                Everyone can check it at Free article spinner and see by yourself. Spin it as many times as you want and try to find any crap there.

                2John Coutts, you can check it too. BTW, it's just a very primitive Spintax example made of your own post (for some unknown reason it was deleted, thus your copyright rights were not violated, I hope ).

                P.S. Don't be so rigorous the the grammar mistakes there because English is not my mother language. I believe the native speaker could write it much better.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870400].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                  Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

                  If video was uploaded illegally, it will be removed from YouTube and thus it will not show on my site. I thought this is quite obvious. If some video is not allowed for embedding, it won't allow me to embed it. That's also obvious. Right?
                  I had a feeling you'd react like that. I did try to be polite, you couldn't manage that in return.

                  So, try and keep your manners with you, I'm not a child and speaking down to me hiding behind a computer and fake name doesn't impress me. You big man.

                  On to your point. Explain how YouTube can tell a video I stole, cropped and called my own will never appear in YouTube and it'll be flagged before it's uploaded.

                  You also refused to answer my first question.

                  After launch of the Panda algorithm, Google started to ban those sites/blogs that contain duplicated (non-unique) content.
                  What do you mean by ban?
                  Signature

                  Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870676].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
                    Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                    So, try and keep your manners with you, I'm not a child and speaking down to me hiding behind a computer and fake name doesn't impress me. You big man.
                    What exactly you found insulting in my words? Did I called you a "copyright violator" or so, like some people here did to me? What's wrong?

                    Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                    On to your point. Explain how YouTube can tell a video I stole, cropped and called my own will never appear in YouTube and it'll be flagged before it's uploaded.
                    It's not my point. My point is that YouTube is responsible for all the content hosted there under DCMA. If something will be reported as illegal, it will be removed. If the content will be removed from YouTube, it will be automatically removed from my site too simple because it's embedded (hotlinked) and is not hosted at my site directly.

                    Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                    What do you mean by ban?
                    By "ban" I mean actual ban when a site gets kicked out from Google SERP's (a simple request "site:blah-blah-blah" gives 0 links), or when a site gets penalized for duplicated content.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870715].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                      Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

                      What exactly you found insulting in my words? Did I called you a "copyright violator" or so like some people here did to me? What's wrong?
                      Did I call you that? No.

                      It's the way you tone your words. Like this. Get it?

                      By "ban" I mean actual ban when a site gets kicked out from Google SERP's (a simple request "site:blah-blah-blah" gives 0 links), or when a site gets penalized for duplicated content.
                      So anyone who has ever taken an article from EZA and used it on their sites, or any site that syndicated my articles was banned from Googles SERPS? This is what you mean by duplicate content isn't it? That's why you're selling your spinning software with that as the first sentence, surely?

                      That is complete and utter BS.
                      Signature

                      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870751].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
                        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                        It's the way you tone your words. Like this. Get it?
                        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                        So anyone who has ever taken an article from EZA and used it on their sites, or any site that syndicated my articles was banned from Googles SERPS? This is waht you mean by duplicate content isn't it? That's why you're selling your spinning software with that as the first sentence, surely?

                        That is complete and utter BS.
                        Two quotes above don't match each other IMHO. Please think on your own tone and words you are using.

                        As about your question, I didn't get it at all. The people who resell goods from the XML shops or Amazon via autoblogs know how it easy to get penalized by Panda for duplicated content. Usually if it finds the duplicated content on your sites it's not a big problem, but only if you don't resell some goods via 3rd-party affiliate program. Google has no love to mediators. The sentence you quoted from my site was exactly about it.

                        BTW, in this thread I have posted my own point of view on syndicating of 3rd-party content: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...illegally.html
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870779].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                          Originally Posted by CyberSEO View Post

                          Two quotes above don't match each other IMHO. Please think on your own tone and words you are using.
                          Wrong again, both those quotes were in the same rude tone you use, they are the same. Read my first post in this thread. Very polite indeed. I'm now lowering myself to your level so you understand me better. Don't expect politeness from me when you have none. I speak to people how they speak to me.

                          As about your question, I didn't get it at all. The people who resell googs from the XML shops or Amazon using via know how it easy to get penalized by Panda for duplicated content. The sentence you quoted from my site was exactly about it.
                          Right, we're getting somewhere. So when you said...

                          After launch of the Panda algorithm, Google started to ban those sites/blogs that contain duplicated (non-unique) content.
                          You didn't actually mean anything to do with articles being syndicated or articles at all. Thank you, that's all I was geting at.

                          Now, it's been a great displeasure having to talk to you and I hope I don't have to again.

                          Once again though, read my first post in this thread, my way of speaking to you now was decided upon as a result of the way you talked to me after my first post.
                          Signature

                          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870832].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
          1 - Some people allow legal and ethical considerations to become confused with the practical applications.
          Let me rephrase this for you:

          Many people rightly reflect upon the legal and ethical components and factor them into their decision process when considering practical applications of a specific technique.

          A practical application of a handgun is to commit an armed robbery. An action which is neither ethical nor legal, nor one that I or anyone else here, I assume, would support. If I were to point that out to somebody considering such an action, does that make me confused? Am I just being distracting? Or am I trying to be helpful in suggesting a different course of action by pointing out legal and ethical issues as well as potential future ramifications concerning such an action?

          I subscribe to the latter of those three rhetorical questions.

          What you label as confused many of us would label as being thoughtful and trying to act in a manner that reflects integrity, which I consider to be the foundation of just about every long lasting, successful business (with exceptions, of course) whether offline or online.

          To each their own I suppose ...

          All other discussions of quality, ethics, copyrights, filling the web with junk and wind direction are merely distracting people from the basic premise of the question being asked.
          We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Myself and others have pointed out that it is important to understand how SEs like Google consider such tactics, as your $5,000/month (or more) business that you have ranked highly through the use of article spinning for backlinks drops down to $5.00/month due to Google no longer indexing or ranking a site highly because of their dislike of article spinning.

          Further, I would hardly consider discussing these issues to be trivial and distracting as people, when discussing the wind direction as you say, are linking the issues of ethics and integrity into the long term viability of such tactics. I, for one, do not see it as a viable method for generating quality SE rankings in the long run. Whatever you think of Google, never forget that there is an abundance of highly intelligent, highly educated and highly paid people working for Google. What can be done concerning generating backlinks with spinning can be undone by those highly intelligent folks writing the algorithms for Google.

          It's a wave. Ride it if you want, but I would say the smart money is betting on the fact that the wave you get from spinning will eventually crash into the beach, leaving one with a mouth full of sand and an overnight destruction of income generated from such tactics.

          And the very reason for that impending conflagration of wave and beach is due precisely and ultimately to the ethical issues surrounding spinning.

          I think people voicing that type of opinion is anything but distracting. Rather it is a vital consideration in determining the future success of an online endeavor.

          But maybe I am biased as my foot in the door technique to the online money making world is an attempt to hire out my services as a writer and I simply fear the competition from spinning software and want to bad mouth it. :p
          Signature
          One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

          - Seldom Seen Smith
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867524].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author rooze
            Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

            Let me rephrase this for you:

            Many people rightly reflect upon the legal and ethical components and factor them into their decision process when considering practical applications of a specific technique.

            Yes, many do, many become confused by the issues also. If you read several of these threads you'll see exactly what I'm referring to. People jump around from opinion to opinion and facts become hard to separate from rhetoric. I'm merely trying to extract one from the other to help clarify the point for the OP.

            A practical application of a handgun is to commit an armed robbery. An action which is neither ethical nor legal, nor one that I or anyone else here, I assume, would support. If I were to point that out to somebody considering such an action, does that make me confused? Am I just being distracting? Or am I trying to be helpful in suggesting a different course of action by pointing out legal and ethical issues as well as potential future ramifications concerning such an action?

            I subscribe to the latter of those three rhetorical questions.

            What you label as confused many of us would label as being thoughtful and trying to act in a manner that reflects integrity, which I consider to be the foundation of just about every long lasting, successful business (with exceptions, of course) whether offline or online.

            Don't twist my words. As I've said above, there are certainly people being thoughtful and concerned that the way they conduct themselves in business isn't contrary to any ethical or moral principals they might have. I did not say otherwise.

            To each their own I suppose ...



            We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Myself and others have pointed out that it is important to understand how SEs like Google consider such tactics, as your $5,000/month (or more) business that you have ranked highly through the use of article spinning for backlinks drops down to $5.00/month due to Google no longer indexing or ranking a site highly because of their dislike of article spinning.

            Further, I would hardly consider discussing these issues to be trivial and distracting as people, when discussing the wind direction as you say, are linking the issues of ethics and integrity into the long term viability of such tactics. I, for one, do not see it as a viable method for generating quality SE rankings in the long run. Whatever you think of Google, never forget that there is an abundance of highly intelligent, highly educated and highly paid people working for Google. What can be done concerning generating backlinks with spinning can be undone by those highly intelligent folks writing the algorithms for Google.

            It's a wave. Ride it if you want, but I would say the smart money is betting on the fact that the wave you get from spinning will eventually crash into the beach, leaving one with a mouth full of sand and an overnight destruction of income generated from such tactics.

            And the very reason for that impending conflagration of wave and beach is due precisely and ultimately to the ethical issues surrounding spinning.

            I think people voicing that type of opinion is anything but distracting. Rather it is a vital consideration in determining the future success of an online endeavor.
            Of course, but can't you see that when some people make their arguments both for and against, they are making emotional assessment which are not factual. I'm simply trying to put that aside for a later assessment. Like this: does it work? Yes or No. Answer= yes.
            But do I want to use it? (now I can introduce the ethical and other issues, once the simple question of 'does it work' has been answered).


            But maybe I am biased as my foot in the door technique to the online money making world is an attempt to hire out my services as a writer and I simply fear the competition from spinning software and want to bad mouth it. :p
            Yes, I want to bad mouth it too.

            There are some simple facts which if you look at them without the emotional constraints of juggling the rights and wrongs, are, at the end of the day, just simple facts. Spinning can achieve the desired result if your only consideration in the world is picking up a slither of juice from a back-link. That's why many people use spun content.
            We tend to over-complicate things. That's all I'm saying.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867628].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Coutts
      Originally Posted by Tadresources View Post

      Unique content is always more valuable, even if it's lower quality and highly spun.
      Why would you think this?

      Content that is "lower quality and highly spun" is also known as crap. Unlike manure that can be used to grow beautiful roses, spun content crap, regardless of how unique it may be, has absolutely no useful application whatsoever.

      The saddest part of your statement is the fact that there are others who believe it too, and by reiterating this nonsense you are likely to gain new recruits to a concept that it completely untrue.

      Unique content is only valuable if it is of good quality and able to provide a positive reading experience to the web page visitor. It needs to be useful, interesting, entertaining, and ultimately, satisfying.

      Do you really believe that "lower quality and highly spun" content can achieve this? I'm sorry, it can't.

      John.
      Signature
      Write System - superior web content
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870404].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasono
    I think TBS would be a great tool for spinning but I think the best thing to do is to spin your article by rephrasing your sentences and not only the words. It's like a different article but on the same meaning.
    Signature

    Learn how to make more money using outsourcing and virtual assistants while freeing up your valuable time. Visit http://outsourcingautopilot.com

    Facebook - Twitter

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866734].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author shawoon98
    With a spinner and a spun article you are basically saving time and money. To be honest, you don't need to do it. It has literally no effect on page ranking.

    But you see, if your article in your site and in the article in the article directories linking back to your site contain the same article, your readers might get bored.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866746].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
    Banned
    Pretty charts. And your earnings from that? Feedback on your content?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866982].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gamzu
    I ran a side by side experiment on 30 articles recently.
    15 raw and 15 SEO optimized with very minor changes to the raw.

    I was monitoring the result and found that google was indexing the optimized articles and market the raw articles to be too similar to be original content, so they didn't even allow the original content into their index.

    My conclusion is - and I may be wrong - that Google looks for the best version of what it perceives to be original content. So if you take someone elses raw article, and optimize it , there is a good chance that you become the "leading" article....

    I can not guarantee this to be the case, but I have some empirical evidence from my side-by-side test.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867033].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Devin X
    Banned
    write your own damn articles! spun articles suck, and they don't work well at all. The only exception is if you rewrite articles yourself, software can't add the intelligent touch to writing. you can always spot a spun article because it looks like garbage.

    that's the truth, don't waste your time. put the time in and produce your own content...or intelligently rewrite articles.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867096].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rooze
    It seems every time a debate breaks out on spinning, the same confused logic appears as a rebuttal to anyone considering its use.

    The three problems with talking about spinning on public forums are -

    1 - Some people allow legal and ethical considerations to become confused with the practical applications.

    2 - Some people are not understanding the practical applications to begin with, so introduce spinning to the equation and they become more confused.

    3 - Some people are just confused, as a general and perpetual state of mind.

    Simple flow of logic -

    1 - If I have multiple versions of the same content published around the web, those considered 'duplicate' may be pushed into the supplemental index and will not pass the same back-link value.

    If that statement can be considered fact, (it has been confirmed by Google) then the following conclusion can be drawn -

    Making each of those multiple versions 'unique' would have prevented them from being dropped to the supplemental index and they would have passed full back-link value.

    Now we need to explore their practical application, why they came to be and what the person who submitted them expected in return.

    1 - The person submitting the content was fundamentally concerned with the quality of the article, and was looking for syndication and/or some direct traffic.

    2 - The person submitting the content was looking for some value from the back-links.

    3 - The person submitting the content wanted all of the above.

    You can now make another logical assumption:

    If #1 was the motivating force, spinning the content would be impractical and completely unnecessary. Each of the spun copies would be a step backward in terms of quality, from the original.

    If #2 were the motivating force, spinning the original into a version which is (sufficiently) unique from the original would appear to be a worthwhile strategy.

    If #3 were the motivating force, it would be fair to say that the person submitting the content was at crossed purposes with how things work. Spun content subtracts quality from the original (there are some exceptions, but largely they fall outside of the scope of this discussion), therefore the goal of point #1 could not be met. So a decision would need to be made to commit to #1 or #2 or risk accomplishing nothing of worth.

    The proviso in the above is that the spinning software is capable of making something which cannot be algorithmically connected back to the source.

    The software is quite capable of this but its dependance on having a human 'driver' makes it susceptible to failure.

    So if it can be agreed that spinning software if correctly driven, CAN create unique content from a source article, then people embarking on strategy #1 above have a viable claim to its use.

    All other discussions of quality, ethics, copyrights, filling the web with junk and wind direction are merely distracting people from the basic premise of the question being asked.

    So the answer is, yes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867140].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      [ ... ]

      Simple flow of logic -

      1 - If I have multiple versions of the same content published around the web, those considered 'duplicate' may be pushed into the supplemental index and will not pass the same back-link value.

      If that statement can be considered fact, (it has been confirmed by Google) then the following conclusion can be drawn

      [ ...]
      But the argument falls apart when a component (the latter part) of point #1 cannot be substantiated with evidence and is instead simply assumed to be fact.

      Subsequent copies of syndicated/non-unique articles may be relegated to the supplemental index, but nowhere is it stated that backlinks from such articles confer less value.

      To the best of my belief, this is not, and has never been, confirmed by Google. People have inferred that, somehow, from second-hand information and even 'other stuff' that individuals like Matt Cutts have said, but it has never been stated directly and there is no reason at all to believe that.

      On the contrary, there are growing numbers of people who are discovering the exact opposite.

      Besides, it's not just a case of "either your page is in the supplemental index or not"; whether it goes there or not depends on the search query for which that page would've been returned, and what SEO relevance that site has, overall, to said term.

      For example, an article on the topic of "car valeting" which happens to touch on "floor mats" might appear in the main results when published on an authority site catering to the former, while being in the supplemental results on another site catering specifically to the latter. But change the queries around (from "car valeting" to "floor mats") and suddenly the article on the latter site is the one to appear in the SERPs, while the former hides away in the supplemental index.

      Suddenly it's all about context; neither of the pages reigns supreme all of the time. So which one confers "full backlink strength" and which does not?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867291].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rooze
        Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

        But the argument falls apart when a component (the latter part) of point #1 cannot be substantiated with evidence and is instead simply assumed to be fact.

        Subsequent copies of syndicated/non-unique articles may be relegated to the supplemental index, but nowhere is it stated that backlinks from such articles confer less value.

        To the best of my belief, this is not, and has never been, confirmed by Google. People have inferred that, somehow, from second-hand information and even 'other stuff' that individuals like Matt Cutts have said, but it has never been stated directly and there is no reason at all to believe that.
        I both see and have a reasonable amount of my own evidence to suggest that it's a fact. Real evidence in terms of measurable and quantifiable results and also 'common sense'.

        If something is pushed into the supplemental index it would be senseless and foolish to reward any links emanating from the content with the same advantages as the original. That would fly in the face of everything Google is undertaking to stamp out this low quality content, don't ya think?

        You, or Alexa, I can't remember which as you seem to say the same things over and over, preach about the value (or lack thereof) of links coming from EZA and other similar sources.
        I've demonstrated easily and simply on my sites that links from unique content carry something where links from supplemental index content carry nothing, nada.

        Can you launch a logical argument to show us why Google would pass full page rank from junk it demotes to the supplemental index or are you just being contrary for the sake of it?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867369].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
          Originally Posted by rooze View Post

          Can you launch a logical argument to show us why Google would pass full page rank from junk it demotes to the supplemental index or are you just being contrary for the sake of it?
          Yes, I can. (Sorry, I added to my above post after submitting it).

          See here:

          Besides, it's not just a case of "either your page is in the supplemental index or not"; whether it goes there or not depends on the search query for which that page would've been returned, and what SEO relevance that site has, overall, to said term.

          For example, an article on the topic of "car valeting" which happens to touch on "floor mats" might appear in the main results when published on an authority site catering to the former, while being in the supplemental results on another site catering specifically to the latter. But change the queries around (from "car valeting" to "floor mats") and suddenly the article on the latter site is the one to appear in the SERPs, while the former hides away in the supplemental index.

          Suddenly it's all about context; neither of the pages reigns supreme all of the time. So which one confers "full backlink strength" and which does not?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867403].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author rooze
            Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

            Yes, I can. (Sorry, I added to my above post after submitting it).

            See here:
            Please show the source for your quote.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867416].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
              Originally Posted by rooze View Post

              Please show the source for your quote.
              What do you mean? It's my quote; it's what I said in my above post.

              You can verify what I'm saying for yourself. Find an article that appears on numerous sites and play around with different search queries. You will discover sometimes that different instances of the article rank according to the query submitted.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867431].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author rooze
                Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

                What do you mean? It's my quote; it's what I said in my above post.

                You can verify what I'm saying for yourself. Find an article that appears on numerous sites and play around with different search queries. You will discover that different instances of the article rank according to the query submitted.
                Sorry, I was eating popcorn and got distracted

                What? You're saying that different searches fetch different SERP's results? Or that the supplemental index doesn't exist?
                It does exist, it runs parallel to the main index and Google even has specific bots which update the SI. A page is either in it or it isn't, it doesn't jump in and out based on the search term used, which is what I think you are suggesting.

                There's an MC video somewhere on this, I'll go dig it out if you wish. Also, if you have pages in the SI take a look at your bot stats
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867461].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                  Originally Posted by rooze View Post

                  Sorry, I was eating popcorn and got distracted

                  What? You're saying that different searches fetch different SERP's results?
                  Yep, precisely.

                  Results depend on a site's overall SEO relevance to a given query. An article on site X can be in the supplemental index for one query while ranking normally on site Y for the same. But flipping the query can also change which incidence of your article is returned.

                  In that respect, there's no such thing as "a page that lives in the supplemental index - full stop'; only one that's in there for certain queries, sometimes, and not for others at different times.

                  On that basis, how could Google decide which article page gets to confer full backlink value and from which ones it is diminished or nonexistent?

                  The answer is that it can't and it doesn't. And that's the inconvenient truth that pro-spinning lobbyists won't face up to, because it ever so slightly complicates the dilemma of how to effectively market their wares.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867601].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author rooze
                    Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

                    Yep, precisely.

                    Results depend on a site's overall SEO relevance to a given query. An article on site X can be in the supplemental index for one query while ranking normally on site Y for another. But flipping the query can also change which incidence of your article is returned.

                    In that respect, there's no such thing as "a page that lives in the supplemental index - full stop'; only one that's in there for certain queries, sometimes, and not for others at different times.

                    On that basis, how could Google decide which article page gets to confer full backlink value and from which ones it is diminished or nonexistent?

                    The answer is that it can't and it doesn't. And that's the inconvenient truth that pro-spinning lobbyists won't face up to, because it ever so slightly complicates the dilemma of how to effectively market their wares.
                    Well I suppose now I have to decide on who to believe.
                    Matt Cutts tells us that there is a supplemental index and it is managed by different bots than those which manage the primary index. You're either in one or the other, though when the bots visit you for a re-index, you can of course be moved from one to the other. But that happens relatively infrequently. In fact, he states that if your page is in the SI it will be re-crawled at a lower frequency than if it were in the main index. Is all of this just a lie?
                    Also, Google used to show the message 'supplemental results' when returning search results....they didn't bounce pages in and out of one index to the next based on what the person entered in the search box.

                    Sorry, but I believe you to be incorrect.

                    As I said in my previous post, check your bot stats.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867660].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author StunningWarrior
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      It seems every time a debate breaks out on spinning, the same confused logic appears as a rebuttal to anyone considering its use.

      The three problems with talking about spinning on public forums are -

      1 - Some people allow legal and ethical considerations to become confused with the practical applications.

      2 - Some people are not understanding the practical applications to begin with, so introduce spinning to the equation and they become more confused.

      3 - Some people are just confused, as a general and perpetual state of mind.
      Actually there's a fourth - some people are naturally argumentative and let their egos and desire to win an argument get in the way of discovering the truth. This thread is a great example of content that is unique but not original. I'm surprised I stayed awake to read the entire thread. Not saying who I agree or disagree with, it doesn't matter, just about everybody has shown themselves in the worst possible light.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867370].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rooze
        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        Actually there's a fourth - some people are naturally argumentative and let their egos and desire to win an argument get in the way of discovering the truth. This thread is a great example of content that is unique but not original. I'm surprised I stayed awake to read the entire thread. Not saying who I agree or disagree with, it doesn't matter, just about everybody has shown themselves in the worst possible light.
        How does trying to clarify an issue by stripping away some of the murkiness show someone in the worst possible light.

        This place never ceases to amaze me. :confused:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867377].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author StunningWarrior
          Originally Posted by rooze View Post

          How does trying to clarify an issue by stripping away some of the murkiness show someone in the worst possible light.

          This place never ceases to amaze me. :confused:
          My point is that many of the posts in this thread are egotistical sophistry designed to win an argument at all costs rather than a genuine attempt to provide insights into a debate so that all participants get a better understanding of the issue.

          I don't deny that the issue has been partially clarified, but at what cost? Emotions boiling over and ad hominem attacks, resulting in participants closing their ears to the contributions of others. It reminds me of children in the playground who close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and repeatedly shout "can't hear you, can't hear you."

          The trouble is that when people participate in a thread and act like this, their approach gets remembered when their moniker/avatar is spotted in another thread, and their contribution to the other thread is then often dismissed, even when provided completely in a civil manner, even when they have something very valuable to contribute.

          I've felt like saying this for a long time. I chose this thread because it was the best (worst?) example of the threads that I was reading yesterday. But it sure is not the only thread on WF to degenerate into this, unfortunately.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871015].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author rooze
            Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

            My point is that many of the posts in this thread are egotistical sophistry designed to win an argument at all costs rather than a genuine attempt to provide insights into a debate so that all participants get a better understanding of the issue.

            I don't deny that the issue has been partially clarified, but at what cost? Emotions boiling over and ad hominem attacks, resulting in participants closing their ears to the contributions of others. It reminds me of children in the playground who close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and repeatedly shout "can't hear you, can't hear you."

            The trouble is that when people participate in a thread and act like this, their approach gets remembered when their moniker/avatar is spotted in another thread, and their contribution to the other thread is then often dismissed, even when provided completely in a civil manner, even when they have something very valuable to contribute.

            I've felt like saying this for a long time. I chose this thread because it was the best (worst?) example of the threads that I was reading yesterday. But it sure is not the only thread on WF to degenerate into this, unfortunately.
            I'm not sure I took away the same conclusions from this thread. I didn't see the attacks or emotions to the same extent as you, perhaps.

            I do agree though that one of the issues here is that there often isn't a desire to actually read and understand people's comments. I get a lot of my stuff taken out of context due to this. I've often been seen as pro this and that when nothing could be further from the mark.

            I think many have set ideas and are inflexible or unwilling to bend. The only reason I get drawn into these types of threads is when I see something being passed off as the truth which has been proven erroneous countless times. When that 'something' changes the outcome of the deliberations it's hard to let it go.
            The way I was always taught to problem solve was to break issues down into small manageable pieces where you can work out which of the pieces critical to the argument are right and which are wrong. Then reassemble them with all of the spurious data and see if the conclusion is the same. Usually it isn't.
            It's hard to butt out of these things having spent 14 years online and 17 years prior in technical management. I'll just have to try harder to let things go by
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871135].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Originally Posted by rooze View Post

              I'm not sure I took away the same conclusions from this thread. I didn't see the attacks or emotions to the same extent as you, perhaps.
              I didn't, either.

              I was actually thinking that the conversation in this thread had been noticeably more constructive and less hostile than had been the case in the previous few threads discussing this subject, and that that was a welcome change.

              Originally Posted by rooze View Post

              I do agree though that one of the issues here is that there often isn't a desire to actually read and understand people's comments.
              Yes, I agree with this, too.

              Originally Posted by rooze View Post

              I think many have set ideas and are inflexible or unwilling to bend.
              Yes, I agree with this, too.

              And undeniably, as we've seen in this thread and in many of its predecessors, many people here have commercial interests of their own around this subject.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871208].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Devin X
        Banned
        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        Actually there's a fourth - some people are naturally argumentative and let their egos and desire to win an argument get in the way of discovering the truth. This thread is a great example of content that is unique but not original. I'm surprised I stayed awake to read the entire thread. Not saying who I agree or disagree with, it doesn't matter, just about everybody has shown themselves in the worst possible light.
        Well said.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867385].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author shekharsvilla
    It's just a matter of time before GOOGLE decides to penalize sites who have backlinks coming in from spun articles and distributed throughout the web. How hard can it be - for 'GOOGLE' - to audit the entire content where backlinks are placed and then find out that 70-80% of the content is matching everywhere?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867232].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author keivn2
    In my opinion, the spinner is not even needed. Writing a unique article isn't that hard actually. Probably it is just me though as the spinned articles never bring me the results that I want.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867944].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
    Wasn't trying to twist your words around on you rooze.

    Of course, but can't you see that when some people make their arguments both for and against, they are making emotional assessment which are not factual. I'm simply trying to put that aside for a later assessment. Like this: does it work? Yes or No. Answer= yes
    My biggest point is that I believe your yes to have a non-emotional, rational time component attached. It works today, but what does Google think about article spinning? What are their plans for tomorrow and what does that mean for one's strategy today? I understand your point. Do you understand mine? I am sure you do.

    I was merely encouraging forward thinking about future ramifications to an income stream heavily dependent upon spun backlinks, and, yes, opining about the practice in general.

    With that, I will quietly bow out of this thread as I think we both have made our respective points and understand those points.
    Signature
    One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

    - Seldom Seen Smith
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5868163].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Usmile
    The reason why articles need to be spun is to create multiple content out of one unique article. As far as I know about spun articles it has a low quality and there are several errors making you to go through it to make it readable.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5869013].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    I think my IQ dropped a few points after reading some of the responses here. In some cases my jaw simply hit the floor out of disbelief.

    That little black book I keep on who not to do business with, let alone reccomend to others, just got a little bit fatter.

    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870627].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
    Originally Posted by Teebla View Post

    i need a great article spinner warriors
    Your own brain + hands + any freeware Spintax spinner.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870841].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
    Originally Posted by Teebla View Post

    i need a great article spinner warriors
    So basically you haven't read the thread. I don't see how you could considering the thread title.
    Signature

    Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870846].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zenned
    Submitting copied articles will not be of any use...
    as they will not help your site/blog to rank in Google
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5870848].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    Originally Posted by simplyphotographysydney View Post

    Spinning articles is not counted as spam but have to change many of the meaning and words by we in proper manner to give it a proper meaning reputation. I am using spinning articles for my use.
    What spinner did you use to generate this comment?

    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5878394].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
    Originally Posted by simplyphotographysydney View Post

    Spinning articles is not counted as spam but have to change many of the meaning and words by we in proper manner to give it a proper meaning reputation. I am using spinning articles for my use.
    I think you used a spinner to make that post.

    Some people would even say you're link spamming this forum.
    Signature

    Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5878407].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MickYoung
    Jeez guys I didn't expect a war to erupt on my thread, I should have run a subscription for it:-)

    So is it better for backlinks and serps to have 25 individual unique articles with anchor text linking to your website or 25 unique articles spun 1,000 times with anchor text linking to your website?

    :-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5883034].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author samjaynz
    Articles don't need to be spun - it's just a surreptitious method that many affiliate marketers use to get maximum mileage out of any given article. Rather than spending the time creating a smaller number of ultra high-quality content pieces, many marketers prefer to create umpteen-thousand variations of the same article and submit them to get "mad backlinks" from article directories (paging Alexa Smith to come in and explain why this is a foolish notion)

    You would be much better served by creating truly stellar content and submitting it to your own website/blog, and then contacting notable sites and blogs in your niche for syndication opportunities.

    Usually, you take 1 mediocre article, then add a whole bunch of synonyms into the mix (without really considering context or tone) Maybe, just maybe, you might add a few sentence variations.

    Then you hit spin and unleash your literary spawn upon innocent web users.

    I'd liken it to the "underwear utility maximization" principle of old - you can wear your underwear normally, inside out, back to front, and back-to-front inside out for maximum mileage. However, just like article spinning, the results are never pleasant.
    Signature
    Sick of over-hyped, dishonest product and course reviews? Check out Reviews Boss for detailed, ethical reviews of leading IM courses, SEO software, web marketing SaaS and more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5883125].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author cashcow
      Originally Posted by samjaynz View Post


      Then you hit spin and unleash your literary spawn upon innocent web users.
      I love that line.
      Signature
      Gone Fishing
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5883162].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author priyanembhard
    I'm not a big fan of spinning articles at all. When I first got into web publishing and content writing I relied on content farms like Ezinearticles for quick content. However as time past I realized those articles weren't doing my site much good in terms of traffic or seo benefit, because many of them were spun articles and duplicate content all over the place.

    If you truly value your site, I say write your own quality content. It gives you more credibility. Some people manually spin articles very well, but the amount of time spent in paraphrasing another author's content could be well spent developing your own writing skills to earn you more fans and users of your site. Spinner softwares produce bad replicas of the original work so why take that route. Search engines are much smarter now and can often spot poorly spun articles from a mile away.

    If you can't write that well or don't have the time, get someone to help you. I see people on this board who are willing to write for some seo benefit or a small price, network and build relationships with them.

    The point is to create a great site with credibility, terrific sticky content, and most of all longevity. I say avoid spinning and write your own stuff. I certainly like to hear new perspectives on old or emerging topics.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5899114].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author itchydog
    I think the word "unique" will soon be replaced with "original" in future discussions about what Google prefers.

    A spun article may be unique, but it definitely isn't original.

    In my experience, spinning has lost some of it's effectiveness, and it will likely lose it even more as Google gets better at understanding what an article is about.

    I can read two versions of a spun article and easily tell that they are about the same topic, and that they contain the same information. I don't doubt that it's possible for the PhDs at Google to figure out how to make a machine do the same.

    In my experience spun articles don't have much ranking power, so if they do rank it's for obscure keywords that there isn't much search results for. If you submit a spun article through services like Unique Article Wizard, My Article Network, or Article Ranks, you are submitting them to websites that actually want to publish your articles.

    Some people write and spin garbage, just like some people write garbage articles. When I spin I do it manually and rewrite each sentence. Quality goes farther, even when it comes to spun articles. And, as quality becomes more important for search engine rankings, quality spun articles will become more important (unless spinning becomes obsolete).

    It is interesting to see all the different thoughts and opinions about the ethics and use of spinning.
    Signature

    Explore the FAILING$ of Two Brothers Trying to Make Money Online - http://www.nicheambition.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5926052].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author savyeman
    Yes and no it depends how much it is spun, how different it is from the original

    But you always want to just use unique 100% content..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5926192].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasono
    If you are going to spun articles I suggest you spun them yourself - never use any tool. Spinning it yourself is like para-phrasing or re-phrasing it so it looks more natural.
    Signature

    Learn how to make more money using outsourcing and virtual assistants while freeing up your valuable time. Visit http://outsourcingautopilot.com

    Facebook - Twitter

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5926211].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seoblacksmith
    Hi All,

    The benefit of spinning content is, uniqueness. One of the guy in this thread told that it is somewhat, the first indexed syndicated content submitted gets the "boost". Technically, that's correct. Do you guys remember Google PigeonRank? Ever wonder why most (not all) of the SEO companies prioritize Ezine? Then, the ones that was submitted few days after the submitted content in Ezine got indexed have a lesser value.

    In my humble opinion:

    The reason why people use spintax, is to make all of their contents considered as valuable like the above "boost thingy".

    I think, the very reason why you guys have this debate is that, no one told you the right thing how, what, when, and where to do those content spinning and submissions.

    What to use in spinning: TBS or Spinrewriter (Much better)

    What to do:
    -PROVIDE YOUR OWN CONTENT! (do not steal from others!!!)

    How to do:
    Procedure in spinning:
    -Automatically spun the content using the tools
    -Make sure that you have at least 70% uniqueness level
    -Do the manual spinning after the first step
    -Check for grammar and readability
    -Do the spot check spun using free spinner like spinnertools

    [Tedious process right?] Yes, that's a big pain in the B.

    When to submit:
    Anytime.. But you have to make sure to limit your submission. Since, the spintax produces a random output. It might give you the "same phrase" on some of the content which is used by search engines and article sites. Approximately, for a 500 words with 70% of uniqueness and at least 4 different title(on the original content). It is safe to submit you contents up to 30-40 times JUST for article marketing.

    Where to submit:

    Do not submit you contents to sites that have little to no authority at all.

    Do your home work and look for top 50 legit article sites.

    Note:

    -Provide at least 3 different titles on the Original Content
    -Provide more than 400-600 words content
    -Use different keywords and landing pages
    -Spin by words and by phrase. Even more, you can also spin by paragraphs.


    Syntax Sample:

    {Why Online {Advertising|Marketing} {Works Better|{Is|Happens to be} {Better|More Effective } } Than {Other|Traditional} {Advertising| Marketing} Media|The {Online|Internet} {Advertising|Marketing} Advantage over {Other|Traditional} {Promotional|Marketing|Advertising} {Strategies|Methods|Media}|{Level Up|Enhanced|Improved} {Marketing|Advertising}: {Online|Internet} {Marketing|Advertising} {Versus|Against} {Other|Traditional} {Forms|Methods} of {Marketing|Advertising } }

    You can use spinnertools.com to check for the result.

    I am a big fan of spinning before. That's why I know all of these stuffs. So for those who have doubts in spinning, there it is. However, I am not encouraging all of you to use spinning.. Search engines are getting smarter, Web Spam Team are also using spinner(reason why they know the ins and outs of spinning), and there are lot of people think that spinning is a crap thing(Actually, its not).

    As a contrary to the above procedure, personally, I don't recommend article marketing for ranking purposes.. I found article marketing to be considered as a support to other signals that is more important than articles. In general, due to constant machine learning designed by people that is once like us(Idealistic or whatever). I would prefer to stick with pure organic methods..

    Methods like:

    • Study on how people look for your services/products
    • An extensive On-page optimization
    • Valuable and the "to know how stuffs"
    • Keyword Stemming
    • Provide a research level content for your pages (Well, it depends on the subject matter)
    • Social Media (With active engagement)
    • The old school email marketing
    • The old school directory submission (Remember that Search Engine Results are local based now)
    • Blog guesting
    • Forums
    • SEO Strategies like spaghetti bowl (using SEO+LBLO+Social Media)

    I hope my 30 minutes writing these stuffs was worth for you guys.
    Signature

    Experience SEO in Sales and Marketing approach. Send me an email at garyandrew15@gmail.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5926615].message }}

Trending Topics