Copyscape is a lie?

In several instances I find duplicates for content that I'm 100% positive that it is unique and results from copyscape are not relevant by any mean.

What are they trying to do? manipulating the credibility of content?

I don't get it!

 

Just click on the links provided by copyscape after a search. It will show you highlighted portions of the text which you have copied, knowingly or unknowingly.

 

I do that already. for example I was verifying an article about certain disease and in the results I got pages about

1- forex investment!
2- credit card application ?
3- personal blog

Also got this on top of the page of one of the results

My article is only -400 words and matched with 1945 words ?

Even the blog post in the result was -250 words and rest of the page was user comments.


Now this is really random and unreliable.

 

i think their script is getting worse each day They are trying to make it more accurate but they only manage to make it worse. I've also seen a lot of duplicates for pages that were 100% original and when i clicked those links there was nothing even close to my content.

 

if this was the case ....then something is fishy...

 

That 1945 words is the combined number of words from all the three sites mentioned by you. I have tested copyscape thoroughly and have found it to be quite accurate. If you have faith in me, just PM me your article and I'll help you sort out the problem. This is what forums are all about, helping out each other.

 

This is why I prefer to use PlagiarismDetect to check my articles. It is easier to see the duplicated sentences and if necessary, make amendments. It shows you the percentage of plagiarism at the sidebar. Best of all, it is free to use as long as you are registered.

 

If it doesn't pass copyscape and I find that all there results are non-related. I class it as a pass. My clients know I do not create duplicate content. Even, if they searched they would also see that the results were a mistake.

Good luck writing... (p.s. no software is perfect)

 

Well Copyscape it full proof, even if they do fishy what they are going to achieve, i dont think anything they will ahcieve, May be something went wrong with ur article may be

 

Wait...what?

 

I've seen articles being spun by spinner programs... now replies are being spun too?

 

I got the gist of it, but the 'fishy' thing really threw me off.

 

I guess that the post above is signed by Google translation

Anyways. it seems that it's not just me noticed that so the question is

Do we still have to stick with copyscape as the judge between content sellers and buyers ?

 

'Copyscape passed' is more or less just the same as saying '100% original guaranteed'. I don't think that most buyers will mind if you use another verification service, and some prefer to check content themselves, so it will never be an issue.

 

copyscape uses teh google api to find close matches, which are then compared using 3 word shingles or better.

If none of your actual text matches, some of the 'furniture' around it might. for example, on this page, it might match 'vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.'

The free copyscape tool matches PAGES, not your content embedded ON a page.

 

I have tried using plagiarism detect and my article was already 0% but when it was tested in copyscape it has 6% duplicated content. I was confused which is correct so i stop using both of them. Presently Im using articlechecker.

 

i agree their script is getting worse.

i haven tried PlagarismDetect, but I'll probably give it a look

 

Thanks for bringing this topic to light as I'm still trying to figure out what is the best service to use to this day. I currently use Copyscape however I may check out the other services listed.

 

I used to use copyscape, now I just use plain old google.

 

well i too find some results of copied pages of articles that i am damn sure of is unique,but when i click on those pages that not he content was similar, its the theme content of the site which matches your them content.