Why Article Spinning Doesn't Work (aka How Google is Structured)

Uhhh, no it isn't.

 

Perhaps not. It's also not really very sensible for newer members to come on here and spout out stuff they happen to believe in as if that somehow makes it correct.

Apology accepted. In which case I apologise too for busting yer hairies.

And this is the root of your problem. You either (a) don't understand that it is (and has been since day 1!) an ongoing evolutionary battle between the search engines and those who would use them to help generate profits, or (b) you believe that Google have already won (forever and a day), and that 'we are doomed, all doomed... give up now everyone, we're doooooomed I tell you...

As (a) is self-evidently true, I can only assume that you're in the 'doom' camp.

Frankly, there's no point debating this because the situation is as it always was - Google wants to make money, and so does everyone else. Google has no monopoly on talent, as you should realize just by comparing how poor their SERPS are nowadays compared with, say, 3 or 4 years back.

 

Then show it.

 

who are you talking to?

 

You.

Couldn't figure that one out, huh?

You said spinners work. .... Show it.

 

Sorry, I thought you were talking to the other guy who was commenting about ezinearticles.

Define what you mean by 'work'.

 

*chuckles* Your reply already told me the answer.

 

I'm not sure that Parry understands multiple denotations.

 

I actually don't feel I have a problem. I am pretty clear about Google's point of view on anything that's done to manipulate the SERPs - and, yes, they have always had that point of view. Over the years -- and I made my first web page in 1997 and started working in SEO in 1998 -- Google has done what it could to apply filters to penalize what it considers spam or to discount manipulative schemes such as link exchanges or buying. It hasn't always been 100% successful, but it plods on.

Is that doom and gloom? I don't think so. I have always thought that useful content was the key to success. I was very happy to use link exchanges when they were effective, and I have enjoyed article writing and found it to be a way to offer something useful while creating a path to a client's door - well, landing page. I don't spin, them, though.

I do believe wise SEOs will begin to adapt to the changes - and article writing is something I feel certain will fall by the wayside. I am not without hope, though. There will always be a way to adapt.

Google is absolutely in the business to make money, and webmasters and site owners and SEOs are here to do the same thing. Yes, it has always seemed as though they were at cross purposes, since for every top spot in the SERPs there are possibly hundreds of thousands of sites that hope to be there.

So, I am afraid this has gone a little off-topic ... so in reviewing your original response, I am not clear -- are you of the opinion that Google can or cannot detect and tags duplicate, spun articles? That's really the OP's point, isn't it?

 

your article spinner is readable or not?

 

Yet another thread that needs to be locked on account of stupidity.

Noobs. Unbelievable.

 

I agree. Until such time as Perry can 'prove' that 'article marketing works'.

*chuckles*

 

Well guys, one thing i have learnt in every business is that "Dishonesty sure fails one day". Its better to put more efforts in going to regular allowed path than go other ways to make quick money. If you see the end result, its actually a huge loss to us.

 

It depends entirely on how well it's been spun. Right now, you get it above 30% unique or so, the engines will regard it as unique. This percentage is rising over time, but there is a theoretical limit (which I won't bore you with) which is based on a number of factors, including the fact that some English linguistic structures are more commonplace than others. Additionally, whether a search engine regards something as 'unique' or not depends on many things, some of which can't be codified for a general case - for example, how many competing nodes there are for a particular search phrase. I'm assuming here, of course that when you say that a search engine finds something 'unique', what you actually mean is that the engine will rank it highly for a specific search term.

 

Um, Gomer, we aren't talking about article marketing.

We are talking about why spinners do not work, and the garbage it creates.

Jesus, there's a regular brain group going here.

And that, in a nutshell, is all that needs to be asked to these bozos who run such sites, and to the ones who hire themselves out to rewrite articles. ... Like the idiots over at the Warrior forum.

 

I feel your pain, Perry, I really do, but you have to understand that article spinning is here to stay. I'm reminded of the 'Buggy whip manufacturer protests' when the automobile finally arrived. There wasn't really any way such an intensive process as article spinning could remain manual, now, was there? There are good article spinners, and bad article spinners, and you tend to get what you pay for. Claiming that they are ALL 'crap' just shows your ignorance (or unwillingness to face facts), unfortunately.

Re your refusal to 'prove' that 'article marketing works'... I can see how this would be a problem for you. Still, if you want US to 'prove' that 'article spinning works', it's only right that you provide a little 'proof' as groundwork for the case to develop. A few thousand words will do to start, and feel free to use the same definitions for 'article marketing' and 'works' as you expect US to use.

Or perhaps you could just up your meds a little.

 

This thread was a great read. Thanks!

 

Heh, finally realize that we aren't talking about article marketing, there, Gomer?

Nope...guess not.

Like I said to the other noob, who shut up real quick there afterwards, still waiting on the original articles, and the spun versions from the spinner, that you say seems to work so well.

So, little noobie, show 'em.

Uh-huh.

Son, seriously, you really need to shut up. *chuckles and shakes head at the boy"



For those of you who are inexperienced in all of this, and you may be interested in such spinning software crap, just ask the webmaster of that site to show you the original articles (at least 350 words), and then the spun versions. At least 2 versions from the original.

Then have him give you access to that spinner for a free trial to put in those same original articles to make sure he isn't trying to pull a fast one.

That's all it will take.

And, keep in mind, you still have to clean up the spun version so it is readible.

Save your money, kids.

Start right now by writing out one new article every day for the next 30 days, and, voila! ... You have 30 fresh articles. ... Articles that you do not have to clean up after a spinner has butchered it.

And, hell, spinners cannot do nearly that many, anyway.

Hell, just do one article every few days, and in no time you will still have plenty of search-engine fodder.

 

Sure, ship me some content, I'll spin it for you. I have a standing order than anyone on this forum can send me an article, and I'll spin it for them so they can evaluate it. As you'd know if you were a little less stressed, and a bit more rational.

You really do need to take more pharmaceuticals though, you're coming across a *very* angry about something.

For people who are unskilled in all this, and you could be curious about such spinning software crap, just ask the web manager of that site to show you the initial pieces, and then the spun versions. At least two versions from the original.

For folks who are green in all this, and you could be fascinated by such article rewriting software crap, just ask the website manager of that website to show you the first draft of the articles, and then the spun versions. At least 2 versions from the original.

For those individuals who are unpractised in all this, and you could be inquisitive about such rewriting software crap, just ask the website owner of that site to show you the original pieces, and then the spun versions. At least a couple of versions from the original.

edit - forgot to say, syntax is now also available!

For those {individuals|people|of you} who are {green|unskilled|inexperienced} in all {this|of this}, and you {may|could} be {enthusiastic about|inquisitive about|interested in} such {rewrit|article rewrit|spinn}ing software crap, just ask the web{site manag|site own|mast}er of that site to show you the {first draft of the article|original article|original work}s, and then the {modified|spun|rewritten} versions. At least {two|2} versions from the original.

 

See what I mean? A simple question like that weeds out the bullshitters.

(And short paragraphs like you showed doesn't cut it, dumbass lol We are talking about articles here. *rolls eyes*)

Try it. You'll save yourself from being ripped off. They'll either not reply back or do more backpeddlin' than the clown on the unicycle at the circus.

ALWAYS ask questions before buying anything. ... Especially shit like this.

You'll see that you have to manually do it.

Thanks, contentboss for helping me out.

*pats the little noob kid on the head*