--------Unique PLR articles-Those who sell/use PLR articles should read this---------

There are thousands of PLR articles on the net.I'm talking about free PLR that you get anywhere on the net.There is no use to use the same PLR that everyone also use right?
my question is:

How can you turn those articles into unique PLR articles that never been published before?

Don't tell me to use my brain to edit the articles ok.Because I'm pretty sure there are many software that can help you edit the PLR articles and turn them into unique articles.Some of the software are free and some are paid.So any suggestions?
Or if you had come over a website that can help you edit those articles.Just drop by and tell us the website.ok?

Thanks

Azim

 

I would like to know this as well.

Good qustion, I am just curious as to how we can trun the articles to be unique.

 

There is software available on this forum, One is Article Content Spinner but they all basically replace some words with similar words. How unique they end up is anyones guess, and the readability of the article is not great.
hth
DD

 

I use this one here. It is free and good. Google arround, you may find many similar ones.

 

Frankly, if you can't either write or buy your own content, you don't belong in the content business in the first place.

There is no such thing as a decent article spinner (the type of software you're talking about). They're all crap, and everything they put out is crap. The only people who think otherwise are the louses spamming the search engines with their garbage.

If you have any business sense, you'll think about the long-term and not just what works "right now." When you build a business model like this one, you're asking to get shut down, and frankly when it happens, the Web will be a better place.

 

jhmattern, Traditionally you're completely correct regarding spinners.

The tool mentioned previously though is not an 'article spinner' in the traditional sense. All it does is take your inputs and randomly picks a choice that you give it. For example you give it 10 paragraphs and tell it you want it to pick from paragraph 1 or 2 for the intro, pick 2 from paragraphs 3,4,5,6,7,8, and pick 9 or 10 for the conclusion.

If you're a good writer all the random versions should make perfect sense and be grammatically correct, but also a large % unique. You can do this on a sentence, word, phrase, paragraph, etc level.

This is much different then a traditional spinner that randomly replaces words with random words or phrases from a dictionary (these kinds always render trash - while Jetspinner's quality is proportional to the time you put into it).
Most of our users use it to get the most SEO benefit from their article submissions and keep bulk article submissions from being filtered by Google.

All the money is made off the upsell to the article submitter, the spinner is completely free so try it out if you don't believe me.

Thanks

 

Quite frankly, it's still the same end result - people who either don't have the skill to write their own quality content or too cheap to buy it trying to scam the search engines with software. There's no justification for it in my eyes... sorry. If you can't write, and you can't afford to hire decent writers, you don't belong in a content-oriented industry. End of story in my book. If you're tied to the software, obviously you're going to disagree.

 

Enough said.

 

I do a semi-automated process of creating multiple versions of articles (600, or even more), very successfully, and submit them to 500+ directories.

I'd invite someone to post a seed article here. I will post 10 versions of the article here, and give a url where I'll show up to 600 versions of it, all of which will be almost as good as the original (sometimes better, if the original is not very good).

And I guarantee a 30% uniqueness between any 2 versions and the same % of uniqueness as the seed article with the rest of the content on the net.

While I agree that all commercial spinning software available are bad, it can't be said that no one can create a tool that would combine a creative writer's skill with a software's pssibilities.

Anyone to take up my challenge?

 

geostar... you'd still be nothing more than a spammer. There's enormously more to truly "unique" content than simple readability. A 5th grader could manage that much. If the articles have nothing "to say," they're garbage. If any "challenge" should be issued, it should be to put out 10 "original" articles actually worth reading in a niche instead of churning out regurgitated crap.

 

Jenn...I'm not sure I understand what you say.

Initially your objection was about the quality of content, and now you're switching to 'spam'. Never mind, let me address this objection also.

I have never used any PLRs. My post said nothing about PLR articles. I was only trying to say how it IS possible to create multiple versions of one article, all as good as the original, for submission to different article directories. I hold no brief for PLR articles. I write my own seed articles and create multiple versions. Are you saying this is spam? Or does it become spam only if I use PLR articles as the seed?

If you say it's spam either way (which is what I read from your reply, because I find no reference to PLR in your postings either; please correct me if I'm wrong), 99.9999% content on the net is spam, because they are all the same things said differently, from one original; that is, there can be only one original aricle presenting any point of view, and all the rest is spam. For example, there's only one original article on how reverse mortgage works, only one on how Google Analytics should be used, and one on how to deal with ADHD children. Unless, of course, you're presenting an entirely different point of view.

Let's say someone submits exactly the same article to 500 article directories; is he spamming? What if he submits to 2 directories? 20 directories? What if someone else creates and submits multiple versions and posts in many directories because he fears that he may not be getting the credit for all his submissions?

How's most content on the net made up? People take several articles, and combine in some way, shape or form, and create another article. You may argue that it is not spam if they added a fig leaf of an opinion to it. What if many people reflect pretty much the same opinion said differently (which is how it is almost always)? Only one is original and the rest are spam?

Since you talk of 'original', what's your definition of 'original'? An article done after a lot of 'original' research (not merely a search of the net, and applying one's mind to it all)?

Let's say there's one excellent 'original' article/ post of 500 words presenting one new point of view in a site. And the owner doesn't like to 'spam' (as you define spam), and so doesn't add any more info to his site. And there's another site that combines the ideas presented in many sites. Which one will rank higher, draw traffic, and sell? Which one will be successful? How does the net work, as it does today?

The net and search engines have been designed to promote sites with 'lots of content', worded uniquely, so you own the copyrights to what you write. No wonder the same content keep regurgitating; and we call some of these as 'spam' and some as 'original content'. In such a case, if I write an article that makes sense to my audience, and create multiple unique versions and submit them to appear in different directories, and I own copyrights to them, are my articles 'spam'?

I think unless someone dares to take these questions head on and answer them fairly and consistently, calling well-crafted multiple versions of articles that the market likes as 'spam' is only an opinionated view, best ignored.

 

I didn't go back and re-read my comments (which were several months old by the time this thread was bumped again). I'm not "switching" to anything. My views are no different, even though I expanded on them perhaps. My recent comments were strictly regarding your own comment.

Yes... that's exactly what I'm saying. If you write multiple versions of one article specifically for the purpose of getting backlinks, and not to truly educate readers (if that were the true intention, you would only need one version), then you're a link spammer (whether based on PLR or not doesn't have anything to do with it).

You're partly right. Most content on the Web is very likely spam - fortunately search engines have gotten progressively better at hiding a lot of the repeat crap (but there's still plenty getting by and available through other means). But you're wrong to say there's only one "original." You can have many "original" articles covering the same topics. There is always some level of opinion or commentary in a good article... not just an outline of facts. I can write an article on how to build backlinks ethically. Others can do the same. We won't be sharing the same exact tips, describing them in the same ways, etc. But if everything you write is coming from other source materials instead of from you to a significant degree, that's when you no longer have something "original." If you write your own pieces reasonably well, they'll have your own personal slant to them which can't (or at least shouldn't) then be mimicked by others who can't think or write for themselves.

For the first part... they're not spamming the article directories, but they would be spamming the search engines indirectly. The number of directories is irrelevant. It's about the motive. If the primary purpose is simply to get it indexed multiple times and get links, it's entirely different than something written actually to inform or entertain in its own right. As for your example with multiple versions, the fact that you say "he may not be getting credit for all his submissions" says it all... that's what makes it link spam as opposed to more legitimate article marketing (posting unique, high quality works to build higher quality links, such as through niche outlet, more targeted traffic, and to help develop an expert status in a niche).

This I already addressed above... that there's rarely just "one" original source on any topic, and that yes, I fully concede that most content on the Web is technically spam. The fact that everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right... it makes it pathetic.

I also already touched on this briefly above. To be "original" it has to have some element of yourself in it. If you can't do anything but regurgitate the work of others, you can't write something "original." You have to know the topic enough to have your own thoughts... that's why specialists in a niche nearly always put out higher quality informative pieces than generic writers who simply rehash the work of others. It's also what separates true "authority sites" from all of the crap content sites on the Web.

Anyone who can't come up with FAR more than one "original" article in their niche has no business running a site in that niche... again, authority sites tend to rank higher, draw more traffic, and sell more (from ads to products) than all of the crap sites out there (you're actually kind of proving my point there).

Actually, I call a lot of it illegal... at least here in the US. When someone simply rewrites an article from someone else, they're violating copyright law here (as no one can make a derivative work by changing any set percentage legally without the original copyright holder's permission). Most that I've seen even taken from multiple sources are flat out plagiarism. Those rewriters don't actually own the copyright to their new "creations" - at least not here. As for the "lots of content" issue - that's kind of silly. They don't favor sites with lots of the same content re-written over and over (which is the issue we were really discussing here). I've worked for three large content networks in the past, as both writer and editor. If their writers can handle writing new content all the time without rewriting (to get that "lots of content), then no one else has a good excuse in my eyes - other than being flat-out lazy and too incompetent to be in the content business of course. As for the spam question... again.. it's about the intention. If it's about nothing but links, with lots of versions going out, yes... that would be link spam (and quite frankly I can't wait until the day Google decides to hammer article directories the way they did Web directories to hit all of the link spammers where it hurts, so we can finally hopefully see less crap content posted all over the place over and over and over again).

Consider them answered. Are my views opinionated? Sure they are. But they're also coming from someone with years of experience in Web publishing for major online publishers as well as at least two dozen of my own sites and blogs over the last several years who also happens to specialize in Web-based promotions. So I know plenty about writing on the Web, link-building, etc.... and how to do it ethically (and more successfully in the long run - meaning focusing that linkbuilding on fewer but higher-quality, more relevant links that offer far greater benefit). So if you want to ignore my "opinionated" views, feel free. No one's holding a gun to your head telling you to agree with me. I'm only even expanding on my views b/c you were so "insistent" (with the time it took, I certainly intend to leave it here, so you're quite welcome to have the last word). However, I could equally suggest that opinions in favor of link spam from someone taking advantage of those techniques should be ignored. But I'd rather think that people reading both sides of the arguments are smart enough to take all points for what they're worth and make their own informed decisions... who knows... maybe they'll even have an original thought and write an original article on the subject.

 

I do agree with you and it's really easy recognize when an article is resulting from one of those article spinners.

However I do not believe that all people trying this kind of software have the goal to spam search engines in mind.

I have read of people recognizing that they have tried an article spinner as a quick start developing their first website after feeling they are not talented writing content on their own.

of course they should always had the option to look for a content writer or buying PLR articles, but every head is a world.

 

So you're saying that an article being submitted to 2 article directories is spamming. By the same token, someone stating the same point thru a blog posting, an article and an email is also spamming. If you argue that blog, article and email are different, 2 article directories are different too. They are meant to reach different people. No Search Engine, including Google, reckons the same article in different article directories spam.

You say I'm partly right that most content on the net are spam, "but search engines have gotten progressively better at hiding a lot of the repeat crap". Search Engines hide identical content, not because they consider them spam, but because they believe presenting identical content to the searching public doesn't serve any purpose. If they had considered them as spam, they could have easily sandboxed such sites, or penalized them in some form. So, if anything, it only proves my point.

In fact, I'd say it is the search engines and the entire web space, as they have evolved, that encourage everyone to pretend to be expert at things one started learning only the previous day. The real 'original' content, in a site created by an SME (Subject Matter Expert) who didn't bother about SEO, keyword density, LSIs and the like, will most likely end up in an obscure position in SE rankings, while the content of a pretending critique, who takes due care of keywords, will happily be right on top of every SE. (I should know, because I used to be one of the affected SMEs, till one day, I decided to start playing by the 'rules of the game'.)

Let's be honest. If re-writing content differently worded is spam, almost the entire net is spam ('not just full of spam').

No wonder an entire industry has evolved that ONLY focuses on how to 'play by the rules of the game' and make money. There are perhaps more ebooks written on how to beat the SEs (what else is SEO, for example, by the way?) than books or ebooks on any other subject. And within this pretentious industry, there are pots calling the kettles black. Some among them claim to be purists and pronounce,"this is ok, but that is not".

Even in PPC, what do the so-called guides by every single expert teach you to do? Not how to create a great product, not how to tell the world how good and unique a product you have, but how to use the keyword in the headline, the ad text, the display url, and even the domain name. And how to write the landing page so that your site has a high quality score, by stuffing it with the right % of keywords. A certain % is absolutely necessary, but above a certain other % is 'keyword stuffing'. What logic is this? Why can't ad writers write ads as if they were writing to real prospects?

Please consult your copyright attorney on this statement. Copyright in an article is NOT on the idea. It's for your specific rendering. Copyright law doesn't stop you from reading an article and rewriting it completely (not just a %) in your own words, though it may appear counter-intuitive.

I think I know enough on this subject. To clarify, I never re-write someone else's copy; I'm just making a point here on what copyright laws say. (I have very high credentials too, but I don't want to present them here, as we're debating an issue, not personalities.)

I can go on, and on, and on...

The bottom-line is this: We have certain 'rules of the game' by which SEs give ranking for your sites. As long as you play by these rules, I believe, you're just doing fine. If you violate, you get penalized. Period.

Sure, the SEs may tighten the rules. Then you adapt to the changed rules, of course.

Ideally, Ses should tighten the rules to the point that 99.9999% of content on the net should disappear. I'd like to see this happen. But SEs won't do this, and most of us won't like it. because Ses will go out of business, and so will most of us.

If you say we should play 'not by the rules of the game', but by the spirit, most of us should be willing to shut shop and go elsewhere. Unless, of course, we apply somebody's arbitrary, selective and convenient logic.

I'd also like to stop my arguments here, and leave the judgment to the readers. (Jenn, I have nothing personal against you; I got provoked by your strong words on what I believe are weak grounds. We just happen to have different points of view.)

 

In all honesty, I haven't read your whole last post, nor do I intend to (this thread has already gotten completely off-topic as it is). But as for the copyright issues, I'm well aware of rules regarding re-writing the work of others.

From the US Copyright Office directly:

 

I don't know what's the problem with you guys but I have been using PLR content unmodified for all my sites and there are no problems.

It's just the way you use it.


Just remember, Google frowns on duplicate webpage, not duplicate content.

Chew on the above statement.

If Google penalizes duplicate webpage, then all articles directories are spammy and all online Press Releases are useless.



In any case, I have a couple of ways to make PLR content unique if you are hard-up for unique articles.

One easy way is just rewrite manually the first paragraph, last paragraph plus one paragraph in the middle.

That itself should renders 30%-50% unique. I would usually take a further step by changing some words in other 'untouched' paragraphs.

Most of my sites are combinations of untouched PLR articles + unique articles + manually rewritten PLR articles.

 

Copyright covers ONLY the rendering, not the idea. If your idea is rendered completely differently by someone else, which is what I've mentioned about, copyright law won't help you. Please read how Art Buchwald was saved, not by Copyright Law, but by Confidentiality agreement:

http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_idea.htm

Please read also:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ31.html

I can quote lots and lots more, if required.

I'm personally not in agreement with this law, but that's the law.

 

I never said anything about an idea. I've already shown you that it does violate copyright to rewrite the work of others (which is what spinning is... not taking an idea and writing a completely new article from it). But seriously, this is getting ridiculously off-topic, and on an old thread to boot. Thread closed.