You can either use a software like The Best Spinner where you just click on a word and it will give you a choice of a bunch of synonyms you can use, or you could do it the old fashioned way by {Typing|Writing|Composing} your article {like this|in this fashion|by doing this}.....(you get the point)
I am yet to see any spun article that is of a quality I would be happy to use on my website, although I'm happy to be proven wrong. I think that just substituting synonyms can make it even harder to read
article spinning is a cool way of rewriting your articles. But most of the time a spun article is funny to read.
I can think of two points. 1. Quality of the spun article to an extent depends on the spinner ---not merely the software. So an intelligent spinner may be able to extract much more out of any software than a less skillful person. 2. Secondly, the basic article structure seems to remain the same with most of the softwares on the market (I have not yet checked out the name mentioned in this thread). So how much can the spun article be different? Hence to answer your question 1. Spun article could be decent too, provided the software receives help from the spinner 2. I think you should write (or get written) your main article and spin articles for link wheel purposes. The first to bring and retain traffic. The second is to push up the rank of your website
I dont think spun articles are bad. Only automated ones that does not even consider the option of choosing the right words produces junk. I have used the best spinner before and I can say the results are not bad. But since it is not free anymore, I switched to easy article spinner. So far, I have no bad experience from using article spinners.
The person who manages to make this will be making big bucks for sure. It's just not possible yet with the current technology. Human are the one suggesting these words, but in the end, it's the software that does the job. No A.I is every that good in such thing yet.
Alright, I have not yet tried out thebestspinner, but have tried several others that just don't cut it. They do read pretty darn bad and I have to manually make them readable after I have spun them. I might as well rewrite that article or just write another unique one, you know. So, with that being said, if its ok, I'm going write an article, get the trial version of thebestspinner (for $77 per year), plug in my article and spin it. I will then come back here and post both the original and spun article from using the above software. I also want to add, everything that I write for my website is unique and not spun. I wanted to use the spun articles to submit to article directories for backlinks and traffic exposure as well. Be back in a few.
I look forward to the review. I haven't seen an obvious method being supported by tools: labeling sections, then being able to spin by section name so you can indeed reorder sections. Related: label the sections selected for spinning and matching with titles, summaries, references, and author sections. So you can have a bunch of sections about eggs and emit articles about egg history, egg uses, egg recipes, egg shopping, etc. The only editor that is almost designed for that is yWrite, as it's designed for a novelist to create a scene and be able to move the scene around during the writing process. But yWrite doesn't support labeling and spinning. I wouldn't be surprised if emacs could do it. It's strange that such things aren't on the market, as they've existed in linguistic labs for thirty years.
I think the problem with most people looking for article spinners is they want a push button solution that requires little input. A well crafted article that has synonym, phrase, sentence and paragraph spinning will read just as well as a unique written article. It is an art that requires some skill and most people seeking article spinning are looking for the push button solution that requires no input or human intervention. Therefor they will likely get an article that is garbage. An article spinner was not meant to be a replacement for article writing unless you enjoy creating garbage. An article spinner was meant as a tool to replicate your article writing at a faster pace and in many cases this will require you to train a piece of software and create phrases and dictionaries that will make an article look unique and readable. There may be many article spinning software's out there but there are only a few that you can train.
The reason why this thread was started is that someone found a spinning software which seems to be working well. Let's wait till GuruCreation spend his $77 and let us know if there really was created a good software for article spinning.
Mostly I never had problem with this system, Can you get back to me on how and what is the process you are carrrying out ?
Spinning can be useful. One reason is that you can take your own original article and spin it so as to optimize it for different key words. IMO there are no spinners that make readable spins. All have to be proofread and edited by a human to be printable. Remember, there is no substitute for hard work, but, you have to work smart also. If you spin take a moment and manually make it readable.
Yes, I completely agree... I just wasn't going to spit out a non-readable article... That would just be plain stupid, right? I was looking for multiple articles in a short period of time... It takes me quite some time to write 10 unique articles, let alone a 100 for my clients every month. Just trying to find one, if any, that make more sense then just gibberish on the first spin. It gets to be very time consuming and as we all know, "Time Is Of Essence" when it comes to marketing. Anyway, thebestspinner has an option for a 7 day trial for $7. As I said in an earlier post, I will give it a shot and post my results here. As usual, when I get some time, I will do this..
Just watched that video of thebestspinner. It looks good - it is more than just spinning. That is like a controlled spinning process. Waiting for your final word.
The above quote is not plagiarism because I've both identified it as a quotation and identified where it came from. Making other versions, such as "Those who spin articles are just doing a type of plagiarism because they can't think or write for themselves." is not plagiarism because I've identified the source. However, the rest of this comment is not plagiarism because I'm writing from my own knowledge about spinning and plagiarism rather than mimicking the above sentence. Plagiarism is copying without permission nor giving credit to the source. Making variations of your own work is not plagiarism. Perhaps you're confusing the act of spinning with those who plagiarize from spun articles. People who are doing spinning of their own work can not be plagiarizing themselves. However, people who steal text from others and spin it are doing two things: plagiarism and spinning. But those two are separate acts. Don't confuse them. People who grab a spun article and put their own name on it are doing plagiarism. Whether it is theft or not depends upon the legal protection of the article. Some spinners want for anyone to use their work, such as public relations workers and people trying to spread an idea (I guess that would make them idea PR workers), so they may place their work in the public domain. Some spinners, such as PR people trying to spread the company name, use licenses which require mention of the company or which forbid alteration. Also, not all publishing without credit is plagiarism. Plagiarism requires not giving credit, but not all incorrect credit is plagiarism. Someone can publish something under their own name without having written it without it being plagiarism. An executive might put his own name on an article written by his PR staff for him, a company will publish a brochure written by an outside consultant who has given them ownership, a blogger may publish an article he has bought all rights to, and a politician may publish the text of a speech which was written for him. These are all legal and not plagiarism. Similar actions in academic circles would not be acceptable because although they're not plagiarism they create works which do not reflect the academic skills of their supposed author, but that is because academic achievements are supposed to reflect what the person's brain is capable of creating. Outside academia there are more factors than what can spring unaided from one's brow. Indeed, sometimes it is better to be the one who is able to make another's brow seem do amazing things.