46 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
46 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Article Spinning is Less Effective than Unique Content for Backlinks

by ttomp13
39 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Study proves Article Spinning and Content Syndication is NOT as effective as
Unique Content for backlinks as --- and may even cause drop in rankings?

Study done by a 4-year IM veteran, who's done guest posts for John Chow, Daily
Blog Tips, the Bad Blogger, and has made over $20,000.00 online. (Not impressive to
some, I know, but better than some people, I guess.)

Over the past few weeks, I've ran several tests, on all brand new domains. This
test isn't 100% conclusive, due to competition factors, but the way my rankings
moved around should still teach you something.

I decided to run this test as a response to Pat Flynn's Backlink Building Strategy.

Here are my findings:

Test #1 - Syndicated Content. (8 Total Backlinks Built)

I took 1 article from my website, and then syndicated that article to Go
Articles and Amazines. I then syndicated the same article to the free blog sites
including Blogger, Wordpress, Tumblr, Live Journal, Posterous, and Xanga, all
with backlinks to my site, all with varied anchor text.

After a few days, the ranking of my website actually dropped from page #2
to page #7. At this very moment, my Tumblr site is actually ranking above
my money site. Oops. So much for article syndication.

Test #2 - Spinning Articles. (8 Total Backlinks Built)

I took the article from my website, and first, I rewrote it completely. I then
submitted this article to Ezine Articles, (waited for approval), and then spun
the article and submitted it to Go Articles and Amazines. I then posted spun
articles to the free blogs including Blogger, Wordpress, Tumblr, Weebly, and
Live journal, all with backlinks to my site, all with varied anchor text.

After a few days, the ranking of my website actually dropped from page #1
to page #2, and is stuck on page #2.

Test #3 - Completely Unique Articles. (5 Total Backlinks Built)

I took the article from my website, and completely rewrote it 5 different
times. I used varied anchor text, and submitted my articles to Ezine Articles,
Go Articles, Amazines, Blogger, and Live Journal.

After a few days, my site climbed up to the #1 spot in Google, and has
stayed there ever since. No dance. Only an increase in rankings.

Conclusion.

Although this isn't a controlled study, we can conclude that test site #3 did
not experience any Google dancing, while test site #1 and #2 did experience
dancing, with both sites actually dropping in ranking.

This is common sense, folks.

Google, (in my opinion, has the technology to see spun articles.) Also, if you
think you're really spinning well, don't forget STOP words. Those are words
that don't mean anything to Google, and may mean that your article isn't
spun as uniquely as you may have thought.

If you were a search engine, think about this; Would you pass more
link juice from a spun - syndicated article, or from a 100% unique article?

Think about it.

Things are not always black and white, but to me, this is a no-brainer.

This study also proves that article marketing, when done correctly, is extremely effective.

Opinions?

PS: You can thank me in advance:

I singled out Squidoo and Hubpages, because they take more work to setup, in my opinion.

Ezine Articles (PR6)
Go Articles (PR6)
Amazines (PR4)

Squidoo (PR7)
Hubpages (PR6)

Blogspot Blog (PR9)
Wordpress (PR9)
Tumblr (PR8)
Weebly (PR8)
Live Journal (PR8)
Webs (PR7)
Newsvine (PR7)
Bravenet (PR7)
Posterous (PR7)
Blog Catalog (PR6)
Blog (PR6)
Xanga (PR6)
My Anime List (PR5)
Migente (PR5)
Insane Journal (PR5)
Geckgo (PR5)
Thoughts (PR5)
SOS Blogs (PR5)
Nexopia (PR4)
Get Jealous (PR4)
Campus Bug (PR4)
#article #backlinks #content #effective #spinning #unique
  • Profile picture of the author mgreener
    Agreed, the only dilemma that people run into is finding the time or competent outsourcer to write unique content for all of the different sites. In some cases less is more though, as in a few high quality unique articles performing better than a lot of spun articles.
    Signature
    2 Free Pro List Building Templates - Turbocharge Your Opt Ins
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838142].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
      Originally Posted by mgreener View Post

      Agreed, the only dilemma that people run into is finding the time or competent outsourcer to write unique content for all of the different sites. In some cases less is more though, as in a few high quality unique articles performing better than a lot of spun articles.
      One of the great things about re-writing if you do have the time is that it
      really makes you an expert in the topic, if you're not already an expert.

      Also, rewriting should be relatively easy, and quick. It takes me about 1
      hour to rewrite 5, 500-word articles.       But I see where you're coming
      from on the time-issue.

      I agree with you on the less is more statement as well. I think my study is
      proof of this, with the fact that I did build less links (only 3 less) but still,
      and managed to rank higher in Google with unique content.

      This strategy (for me) has been the ONLY strategy that has consistently
      worked even through Panda and Penguin.

      The strategy that has continuously brought me results is building unique
      content, and submitting that content to Ezine, Go Articles, Amazines,
      Blogger, and Live Journal. Wait. And then if you need to increase your
      rankings, build more backlinks, or internal links.

      I honestly don't see how Google could ever penalize a strategy like this,
      and since I started back in 2008, Google never has penalized this strategy,
      unless someone uses too a high % of the same anchor text.

      PS: You could throw in guest posting, but I like article marketing,
      because it's a guaranteed way to build backlinks every week. If you do
      want to guest post, I would just recommend substituting one of the
      article sites, and submitting a guest post instead.

      And honestly, I've tried a little bit of everything.
      PS: DO NOT EVER use any of these techniques.

      * BMR
      * Nuclear Link Blaster
      * Paul and Angela Backlinks
      * Blog Commenting Software
      * No Backlink building at alll.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838209].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dentist
    This is my understanding:
    - Different websites/sub-domains may be assigned a trust score (call it whatever you want) based on the historic quality of content published on their websites. Think Ezine Articles vs. some of those article websites that approve spun content. Now if the backlinks of your webpage mostly come from non-trustworthy/crappy type websites/webpages or the ones that have no trust score(New websites/web pages may not have any trust score yet.), then they may actually hurt you. If you have a bunch of trustworthy backlinks from good sources, then they may not hurt you. The thing is there are chances that any good webpage on the web to have some crappy backlinks anyway, but when it comes to search engine algorithms everything is about calculations and hence ratio. My understanding is the following ratio can be a positive or negative factor for your rankings:
    ratio of trustworthy backlinks/all backlinks
    You can think webpage or website...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838278].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kaluuu
      Originally Posted by Dentist View Post

      This is my understanding:
      - Different websites/sub-domains may be assigned a trust score (call it whatever you want) based on the historic quality of content published on their websites. Think Ezine Articles vs. some of those article websites that approve spun content. Now if the backlinks of your webpage mostly come from non-trustworthy/crappy type websites/webpages or the ones that have no trust score(New websites/web pages may not have any trust score yet.), then they may actually hurt you. If you have a bunch of trustworthy backlinks from good sources, then they may not hurt you. The thing is there are chances that any good webpage on the web to have some crappy backlinks anyway, but when it comes to search engine algorithms everything is about calculations and hence ratio. My understanding is the following ratio can be a positive or negative factor for your rankings:
      ratio of trustworthy backlinks/all backlinks
      You can think webpage or website...
      These types of links from article directories and sites like .wordpress, .blogspot, .tumbler, weebley ....and others, in the near future their power will decrease.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838456].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mrsvirtualassistant
        Most article spinners deliver poor quality content. They are useful to a certain extent. It is better to rewrite unique articles in your own words or create original content rather than using article spinning.
        Signature
        -> Get Profile Backlinks here
        -> #1 Virtual Assistant Service Hire Your Own Virtual Assistant To Work JUST For You
        -> Ezine Articles Service Let Us Build Your Article Portfolio Today!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838522].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
        Originally Posted by kaluuu View Post

        These types of links from article directories and sites like .wordpress, .blogspot, .tumbler, weebley ....and others, in the near future their power will decrease.
        Where did you read that?

        I'd have to disagree with that statement, 110% from this simple perspective:
        If you're posting unique, related, and useful content for backlinks, and linking
        back to your site, Google will ALWAYS see this as a plus, even if Matt Cutts
        disagrees.

        What does Google want?

        QUALITY - QUALITY - QUALITY

        People have been trashing article directories for years, and I know that the
        past isn't always a telling sign of the future, but article directories have always
        been effective for me, and have survived ALL panda and penguin updates.

        My point here is, why and where did you read that these "types" of links were
        going to decrease in power in the "near future?"

        I'm not saying you're wrong, but to make a claim like that, you have to have
        a source, right?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838699].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author kaluuu
          Originally Posted by ttomp13 View Post

          Where did you read that?

          I'd have to disagree with that statement, 110% from this simple perspective:
          If you're posting unique, related, and useful content for backlinks, and linking
          back to your site, Google will ALWAYS see this as a plus, even if Matt Cutts
          disagrees.

          What does Google want?

          QUALITY - QUALITY - QUALITY

          People have been trashing article directories for years, and I know that the
          past isn't always a telling sign of the future, but article directories have always
          been effective for me, and have survived ALL panda and penguin updates.

          My point here is, why and where did you read that these "types" of links were
          going to decrease in power in the "near future?"

          I'm not saying you're wrong, but to make a claim like that, you have to have
          a source, right?
          Simple, they are spammed and a lot of the content is written gramaticaly correct but it is not quality content.in its pure sense. Google I am sure that knows this, and also Google knows that we make blogs like this only for our link building strategies.

          Let's put it this way, you have a website that has only links from this types of websites. For google this is so clear that you are doing a manipulation of the algorithm. I am not saying that these links won't count for ranking a page, I say that I think the value of this links coming from this such of websites will decrease in the near future.

          I did not read this somewhere, this is just my believing...and when this will happen I will UP this thread just to say I was wright. (joke)
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838855].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
            Originally Posted by kaluuu View Post

            Simple, they are spammed and a lot of the content is written gramaticaly correct but it is not quality content.in its pure sense. Google I am sure that knows this, and also Google knows that we make blogs like this only for our link building strategies.

            Let's put it this way, you have a website that has only links from this types of websites. For google this is so clear that you are doing a manipulation of the algorithm. I am not saying that these links won't count for ranking a page, I say that I think the value of this links coming from this such of websites will decrease in the near future.

            I did not read this somewhere, this is just my believing...and when this will happen I will UP this thread just to say I was wright. (joke)
            I can respect that opinion. This entire thread is really just opinion, with some
            facts to back it up. :-) What about article directories though, or guest
            posts? My thought is, if you build a blog on Blogspot for example, and you
            keep posting legit articles, (let's say you eventually build a 20 page
            blogspot blog) then Google will see that as helpful, legit content, no?

            I know what you're saying though.

            Most people build 1 blogspot blog, spam the hell out of it, and call it a day.
            But I'm talking about actually using these Web 2.0's the right way. Actually
            building unique, quality sites out of them by rewriting articles, and linking to
            other, relevant sites, not just your site every time.

            I think there is a way to effectively use Web 2.0's and then there is a way
            to completely ruin their purpose. But I hear you for sure.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838887].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author kaluuu
              Originally Posted by ttomp13 View Post

              I can respect that opinion. This entire thread is really just opinion, with some
              facts to back it up. :-) What about article directories though, or guest
              posts? My thought is, if you build a blog on Blogspot for example, and you
              keep posting legit articles, (let's say you eventually build a 20 page
              blogspot blog) then Google will see that as helpful, legit content, no?

              I know what you're saying though.

              Most people build 1 blogspot blog, spam the hell out of it, and call it a day.
              But I'm talking about actually using these Web 2.0's the right way. Actually
              building unique, quality sites out of them by rewriting articles, and linking to
              other, relevant sites, not just your site every time.

              I think there is a way to effectively use Web 2.0's and then there is a way
              to completely ruin their purpose. But I hear you for sure.
              To respond to the red part:
              - this why Google will have to leave a little power to this type of sites.

              The proof of my theory is the past, links that was coming from this type of sites were much powerfull than today.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838968].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
                Originally Posted by kaluuu View Post

                To respond to the red part:
                - this why Google will have to leave a little power to this type of sites.

                The proof of my theory is the past, links that was coming from this type of sites were much powerfull than today.
                I managed to rank my big site (which is now making $1,000 a month) just using
                the method I shared in case study #3. Also, all of my sites that are still ranking
                well have only used the method used in case study #3.

                Although your idea that these kind of links were more valuable in the past than they are
                today may be true,in my experience, and again, when using 100% unique content still
                do provide a site with a ton of power.

                But as you said, maybe this power will be reduced in the future.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838993].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nelapsi
    Just curious, how was the article spun? This does make a difference because if you used just some automated press the button and let it do the work for you then the results really are rather pathetic.

    Over all I agree with the results though..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838351].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
      Originally Posted by Nelapsi View Post

      Just curious, how was the article spun? This does make a difference because if you used just some automated press the button and let it do the work for you then the results really are rather pathetic.

      Over all I agree with the results though..

      I spun the article manually, and even went through and added a completely
      NEW introduction and conclusion to each spun article to ensure they sounded
      and looked completely different.

      To say the least, I spun them well, and each one was 110% readable.

      I changed words around, sentences, went the whole 9-yards.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TuNguyen
    Re: Article Spinning is Less Effective than Unique Content for Backlinks

    ...isn't this kinda common knowledge?

    What if we simply said the same thing, but like this...

    "Unique content is more affective than article spinning for backlinks"

    or am I missing something??? 0_o???
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838394].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
      Originally Posted by TuNguyen View Post

      Re: Article Spinning is Less Effective than Unique Content for Backlinks

      ...isn't this kinda common knowledge?

      What if we simply said the same thing, but like this...

      "Unique content is more affective than article spinning for backlinks"

      or am I missing something??? 0_o???
      You're 110% right, but some people think spinning is just as effective. Pat
      Flynn, Peng Joon, and many others (whom I have a TON of RESPECT) for
      promote article spinning.

      I simply wanted to share my case study with those who are on the fence,
      and let them make a logical decision from there.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838722].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
        I'm no genius, but again, I think the entire goal here is quality over quantity
        with good form. If you're writing unique, helpful, quality articles, and posting
        them on Ezine, Amazines, or somewhere of the sort, then you're doing yourself,
        Google, and internet searchers all a favor.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838752].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author paulgl
          I don't know what's with the purple text, maybe spam
          looks more attractive.

          Every article is just spun stuff, if you really get down
          to it. Same facts, figures, etc. Same old same old.

          This "revelation" is just the latest from spin-master-SEO-people.
          Nothing more, nothing less. Has nothing to do with rankings
          whatsoever.

          The proof is somehow equating the root index page's PR
          with anything. I mean seriously. Squidoo being PR7 has nothing
          to do with anything on squidoo. There is junk on squidoo, junk
          on hub, junk on WP, junk everywhere.

          A unique article can be junk. Unique is meaningless. Backlinks
          in a "unique" article are not worth anymore than anything else,
          if all other things are equal.

          Cause and effect get so mixed up here, the spin just keeps
          coming, depending on what magical elixir one is peddling.

          I for one am tired of this junk here. Whether it has purple
          text, red text, or green text.

          This study also proves that article marketing, when done correctly, is extremely effective.
          Now, what's the big revelation there?

          Paul
          Signature

          If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838820].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
            Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

            I for one am tired of this junk here. Whether it has purple
            text, red text, or green text.

            Now, what's the big revelation there?

            Paul
            Paul - If you don't like it, you don't have to read it. There are many noob
            marketers on this forum that need to know what works, and what doesn't. I'm
            sharing my thoughts and discoveries to help people.

            And your comment helps how?

            Produce unique content, submit unique articles, and don't try to take
            shortcuts. I know this is common sense to many, but it isn't to everybody.

            Seeing that Mr. Grumpy over here woke up with a smelly t-bag on his face,
            (I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure out what I mean) then you
            probably already know all of this.

            #GetALife.
            #PostSomethingUseful.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838849].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Iamcap
    Thank you for taking the time to share your results, but I highly doubt you can have any kind of credible conclusion with such small data.

    You said that in your syndicated test the tumblr blog appeared higher in the rankings. Have you not tried writing a NEW article and syndicating that to tumblr, blogger, etc, and pointing to an article you WANT to rank for?

    Your tests seemed to have been ranking on pages 1 and 2 before any backlinking, what keywords did you pick?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838977].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
      Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

      Thank you for taking the time to share your results, but I highly doubt you can have any kind of credible conclusion with such small data.
      There is a credible conclusion in that case study #3 ranked without going
      through a Google Dance, while both other sites danced, and are still dancing
      today. To me, this is valuable information.

      Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

      You said that in your syndicated test the tumblr blog appeared higher in the rankings. Have you not tried writing a NEW article and syndicating that to tumblr, blogger, etc, and pointing to an article you WANT to rank for?

      I have not tried writing a new article, and then syndicating it directly. What I
      have tried doing (which is essentially the same thing) is writing a new article,
      then spinning it, and then submitting. From my experience, having the same
      article on multiple websites devalues the link, or can actually cause you to
      drop in the rankings.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6839011].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MarksWineClub
    A couple of things.

    If you have the same article on Tumblr as on your site, it makes sense the Tumblr site outranks yours. It's more trusted than your brand new domain.

    One thing I do wonder-for studies #1 and #2-was the article indexed and cached on your site before syndication? Or is Google penalizing your site because it doesn't consider it the original owner of the article?
    Signature

    Read our most recent articles on wine, this month it's that unappreciated region called Napa Valley.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6839039].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Iamcap
      Another question i'd like to add is, did you link back to the original article in all the backlink posts?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6839052].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
        Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

        Another question i'd like to add is, did you link back to the original article in all the backlink posts?
        I guess I'm confused by this question.

        Each article I submitted to every directory and Web 2.0, I linked back to my
        original site (money article.)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6839072].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
      Originally Posted by MarksWineClub View Post

      If you have the same article on Tumblr as on your site, it makes sense the Tumblr site outranks yours. It's more trusted than your brand new domain.
      Exactly, and I was thinking the same thing, however, on all 3 studies, the
      content on my site was indexed first, before any backlinks were built.

      I was reading a couple days ago somewhere that Google can have a difficult
      time (in rare cases) while ranking scraper or syndicated content above the
      original article. The best way to prevent this (according to the post I read) is
      always to link back to the original article source. (Which I did, obviously. lol)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6839059].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Iamcap
    That's what I meant, you wrote Article A. Syndicated Article A on tumblr with a link back to Money Site Article A.

    This isn't how you should do it, what is the purpose of linking to the exact same content? Users would just get angry, and I'm sure if users get angry, google gets angry = they have something in their algorithm for this problem.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6839191].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
      Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

      That's what I meant, you wrote Article A. Syndicated Article A on tumblr with a link back to Money Site Article A.

      This isn't how you should do it, what is the purpose of linking to the exact same content? Users would just get angry, and I'm sure if users get angry, google gets angry = they have something in their algorithm for this problem.
      Like I said, this was a case study. Not how I would normally do things. I just
      wanted to see how things would play out.

      If Google sees that an article is linking to the same article, then they see it as
      syndicated content. Google actually RECOMMENDS linking the syndicated
      article back to the original article:

      However, it is helpful to ensure that each site on which your content
      is syndicated includes a link back to your original article.
      Source: Duplicate content - Webmaster Tools Help
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6839234].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dids
    thanks for taking the time to do this and give back. With spun content you really have to go to a high standard if your not doing paragraph and sentence rewrites you wasting your time

    quick question what score does one of you spun articles get on the following sites

    ed grammarly
    copyscape

    what was your char to word ratio?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6845187].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ttomp13
      Originally Posted by dids View Post

      thanks for taking the time to do this and give back. With spun content you really have to go to a high standard if your not doing paragraph and sentence rewrites you wasting your time

      quick question what score does one of you spun articles get on the following sites

      ed grammarly
      copyscape

      what was your char to word ratio?
      I did paragraph and sentence rewrites, and the articles were 100% readable.
      Copyscape passed my content with flying colors. Never used Ed Grammarly.

      I know that you really want to think my study is incorrect (I can tell), but
      fact is, laziness isn't going to get any of us anywhere in this business. If you
      want to do things the right way, then spinning is the wrong way to go, plain
      and simple.

      If spinning does work now, it will not work later.

      In my experience though, spinning has just caused me a drop in my rankings.

      I don't know about you, but I'm in this game for a long term business, and
      after I did all of that spinning, I was thinking anyway, "What if Google comes
      up with a way to devalue spun content?" If they did, then my sites would
      get whacked on the next update.

      Point of this entire post:

      Don't take shortcuts, or you're going to get cut short.

      Quality over quantity.

      But still produce quantity.

      Just make sure quality comes first.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6847537].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dids
        Originally Posted by ttomp13 View Post

        I did paragraph and sentence rewrites, and the articles were 100% readable.
        Copyscape passed my content with flying colors. Never used Ed Grammarly.

        I know that you really want to think my study is incorrect (I can tell), but
        fact is, laziness isn't going to get any of us anywhere in this business. If you
        want to do things the right way, then spinning is the wrong way to go, plain
        and simple.

        If spinning does work now, it will not work later.

        In my experience though, spinning has just caused me a drop in my rankings.

        I don't know about you, but I'm in this game for a long term business, and
        after I did all of that spinning, I was thinking anyway, "What if Google comes
        up with a way to devalue spun content?" If they did, then my sites would
        get whacked on the next update.

        Point of this entire post:

        Don't take shortcuts, or you're going to get cut short.

        Quality over quantity.

        But still produce quantity.

        Just make sure quality comes first.
        hi not trying to say your study was incorrect was just wondering to what level you spun.
        i agree quality over quantity i recently was asked to look at a site for someone who had recently created around 300 web 2.0(and obviously considerably dropped ranks) they were spammy as hell with no real value.
        when i asked why? the responce i got was "there really good for ranking"
        it's that mentality of more is better that really destroys some peoples sites.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6850498].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimD
    Thanks for doing this and for publishing your results. I don't think this is common sense at all. The alternative strategies you test were common practice until about 8 months ago. Thanks for taking the time to give real examples. I have a strong preference for posts like yours over the garden variety "crush Google using this new loophole that will be available for the next 27 days until Google figures out how to stop or silly trick". Which I see constantly.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6965386].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author howto
    This post was really useful. I will stop spinning and make some quality web 2.0 sites instead I think .


    Posted from Warrior Forum Reader for Android
    Signature
    How I made $100,000 in 3 days
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6965922].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author johny53
    Unique and engaging articles are always going to somehow rank better; however, getting completely written unique articles just for the sake of building backlinks will never be more profitable than spinning.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6966320].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yonaswedo
      Originally Posted by johny53 View Post

      Unique and engaging articles are always going to somehow rank better; however, getting completely written unique articles just for the sake of building backlinks will never be more profitable than spinning.
      Good point.

      Low quality content + backlinks inside :confused:
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6966436].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author twilightofidols
    Guys please stop spinning it will make my life easier :-)

    Appreciate the effort, but 8 links per test is hardly scientific albeit your disclaimer.

    Properly spun content works swimmingly and is not different in the eyes of Google than "unique content". Spinning will never die because properly spun content is undetectable and for all purposes IS unique content.

    Word spun one click "replace everyone's favorites" content isn't going to fly in most niches. Google has powerful n-gram capabilities, and can understand it's the exact same sentence even though you replaced a bunch of synonyms. It's not enough to just spin on word level, or even sentence level for that matter.

    Google does not know "quality" content. Only people know quality content. The best thing they can do is look for signals like click through rates, bounce rates, time of page, etc... Google looks for unique content and can identify spun crap by looking for footprints and patterns lazy marketers leave behind.

    You must spin punctuation, sentence structure, # of sentences, # of paragraphs, html, word order, images, video, and then the actual sentences/paragraphs themselves of course. I'd say a minimum of spinning each sentence 4 times, and paragraphs at least twice.
    Signature
    Sad Panda
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6966418].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mosthost
    Spinning will never die because spinners are winners. Don't forget, quitters never spin and spinners never quit!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6966430].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mosthost
    Spinning is not a sometime thing; it's an all time thing. You don't spin once in a while, you don't do things right once in a while, you do them right all the time. Spinning is habit.

    --Vince Lombardi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6966451].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jinx1221
    “Anyone who stops spinning is old, whether at twenty or eighty. Anyone who keeps spinning stays young. The greatest thing in life is to keep your mind spinning.”
    - Henry Ford
    Signature

    The Ultimate Private Network Management,
    Visualization and Automation Tool



    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967156].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ArcherWylde
    Genuinely unique quality content has always been what the big G has been trying to deliver to their customers (searchers), I doubt that will change anytime in the near future.

    Even though this test was on a rather small scale (compared to the internet), I totally agree with the results. I've seen many times people argue that syndicate content is different than duplicate...I've never bought it.

    I say this even though Google syndicates content all day long, one of their more hypocritical behaviors...but hey it's their world and we just play in it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967784].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bhushan@rancor
    article spinning is not effective at this time But I can say that contents are in demand.It will affect Good rather then article spinning.
    Signature
    Interactive Bees Pvt Ltd best known for Quality Web Development Solutions and Online Marketing Services.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967930].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nik0
    Banned
    This is definitely the worse and most unreliable case study I ever read.

    A website is definitely not gonna dance cause of 8 PR n/a links. Most probably there was just some Google update taking place that made the keywords dance a bit. This happens almost on daily base and some updates have a bit more influence then others.

    If syndicating content was bad then every time I submit a press release my rankings should drop which has never been the case.

    A link at a pr n/a page is a link at a pr n/a page, no matter what kind of content it's surrounded by, the authority of the page just remains the same.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967941].message }}

Trending Topics