| 8:29 pm on Mar 25, 2011 (gmt 0)|
As a non writer, this is an eye-opening thread. If nothing else I have had my eyes open to watching content. I'm still not sure I understand the issue. Are you guys referring to a News article that is rewritten several times (spinner or no) and presented to different entities, or are you referring to advertising copy or something else.
Where can I see examples of what we are discussing?
| 9:02 pm on Mar 25, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|However, if your site is full of AdSense and alienated visitors look for the first click off a page that offends their sensibilities, then it's gonna rock the CTR! |
Well, we both know that's the type of site we're talking about with this stuff anyway. It is crap, but I don't really care. There is much to be learned.
|I'm still not sure I understand the issue. |
Read the second post of John Roy, on the second page of this thread. That's the type of content that's being produced. Basically you take an article - use your imagination as to where one would get such an article (also see the threads where people get angry about scrapers) run it through a spinner, and you've got 100 pages of content, automated. Crap content, but it's automated. Which is how you can put up 1000 sites and test what's working.
| 1:26 am on Mar 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
And here's my big 'shrug'. I posted in the supporters section how I got 50,000 pages of content online, in a way that can be duplicated. And as I noted, few will follow the example for no other reason than it involves work. As long as hard work pays off, I'm safe in the top 10%. Because 90% of the people want to take someone else's article then buy a program to expand that one page into 100.
Frankly, that kind of automation works for some folks, but only for the really bright dark hats IMO. By the time it's available to the masses it's on the edge of going away. Folks were doing variations on automated content production easily 5-7 years ago, maybe longer. I suspect the folks that were doing that then, are doing something else entirely different today.
| 4:47 pm on Mar 30, 2011 (gmt 0)|
There's no difference if the content was written on canvas, on black board, on paper, or machine-produced.
|anyone that is using spun content, probably wouldn't want to share, it's going to lessen the chances of their content passing the grade |
If the ground seeds are planted carefully, a spinner can grow better stuff than some folks would be able to produce by hand.
It needs a human review before submitting online, though.
| 5:25 pm on Mar 30, 2011 (gmt 0)|
There's no way a machine is going to write an article as well as what I can. Most people can't write articles as well as I can.
Spinners might be able to produce mediocre content as well as a mediocre writer. And faster. But expert level? Not a chance. I'm still writing articles in a competitive industry on specific topics that nobody else writes about.
| 5:42 pm on Mar 30, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I would venture to say that the day Google decides to de-index all "mediocre" content is the day they can shut down better than 90% of their servers.
| 8:11 pm on Mar 30, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Good stuff, excellent stuff, bad stuff, horrible stuff. That's not the issue.
We talk about medium content that is needed to fill a gap. The quality tends to be fine (thanks to the human reviewer). The quantity explodes, thanks to the spinner.
| 8:51 pm on Mar 30, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Shrug. I don't care whether folks do this. But if you take a mediocre quality article and spin it 50 times, then publish it on 50 websites then you've turned it into crap content by virtue of duplicating it. It's not medium quality. It's crap.
I'm pretty sure it's borne out by the reality as well, spun articles are overall, crap. Yeah, sure, maybe find one counterexample. But spinning, produces crap.
But spinners don't care - it's the volume that matters. Which is fine - I personally have no problems with that business model (it's not mine). Just don't be selling it as a silk purse, I'm not buying that.
Frankly, the more of that crap on the web, the better for me. The higher the density of this kind of crap, the more affiliates in my niche, the more automation, all that forces my site up to the top as being expert. And it's my expert status that I sell in everything, in sales, in link dev, in social media etc. I'm the specialty store beside walmart.
| 12:44 am on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Well, I don't think many will come out with a ringing endorsement of mediocre or sub-par content. But almost everyone does it. It's like driving over the speed limit.
I have to agree that we're trudging in a pretty bleak landscape, and it's not all that difficult to establish a refreshing oasis for the wayfarer. It can even be done by taking pains to vary well crafted, informative content using a spinner, without sacrificing quality. I know, because I do it. Most who use these tools don't, however.
Opinions, of course, will differ.
| 6:51 am on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Here is what GoogleGuy says about spinning... (old post though)
|Matt Cutts.. often finds that honest webmasters worry about dupe content when they don’t need to. G tries to always return the "best" version of a page. Some people are less conscious... A lot of people ask about articles split into parts and then printable versions. |
Do not worry about G penalizing for this.
Different top level domains: if you own a.com and a.fr, for example, don’t worry about dupe content in this case.
General rule of thumb: think of SE’s as a sort of a hyperactive 4 year old kid that is smart in some ways and not so in others: use KISS rule and keep it simple.
While it’s helpful to try to pick one of those articles and exclude the other version from indexing, typically a whitehat site doesn’t neet to worry about 1-3 versions of an article on their own site. However, I would be mindful that taking all your articles and submitting them for syndication all over the place can make it more difficult to determine how much the site wrote its own content vs. just used syndicated content.
In other words: Go ahead and spin. With a limit of course. Be cautious of course. Use the spun content to link to the main source.
| 3:43 pm on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|In other words: Go ahead and spin. |
Not sure how you concluded that from what Matt Cutts said. He specifically said
That's completely different from spinning 50 different versions.
|a whitehat site doesn’t neet to worry about 1-3 versions of an article on their own site |
He also said that Google isn't penalizing for this. He never said that spinning content actually helps in any way.
| 5:42 pm on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
>> Go ahead and spin. stop
Not sure how you concluded that from what I said ;)
Correction: "Go ahead and spin. With a limit. Be cautious."
| 5:52 pm on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
What else shall he say?!
|He also said that Google isn't penalizing for this. He never said that spinning content actually helps in any way. |
If one finds a way where spinning is helpful - we don't need Google to tell us that. Once they don't penalize it's a go ahead sign.
Google. That sort of 4 year old hyperactive kid...
| 5:55 pm on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Not sure how you concluded that from what I said ;) |
Logically, from your own posts:
1) Mar 17: "If you need 3 copies - it's easier to rewrite it.
If you need several of them, it's easier to spin."
2) Mar 22: "So you need 50... of 100-200 words"
Matt Cutts says, "[don't] worry about 1-3 versions"
3) Mar 31, "Go ahead and spin."
Since you recommended manual for 3 copies, one has to assume that you advocate spinning for more than 3 copies. Which is above the limit suggested by Matt Cutts. That is how I concluded it.
| 6:21 pm on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, cute spin :)
msg#:4289966 comments on the Matt Cutts quote only. I don't think anybody would await his clear recommendation to use a spinner.
But if you know how to read between the lines... Nuff said.
| 6:30 pm on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Since you recommended manual for 3 copies |
Yes. Because it is faster. Manual for 3 different copies. Matt Cutts talks about 3 identical copies.
| 6:41 pm on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Yep- I did it manually. ;)
|But if you know how to read between the lines. |
No need to read between any lines- it seems pretty clear to me that he is saying more than a few versions is not going to be liked by Google.
|Matt Cutts talks about 3 identical copies. |
Since when does "versions" mean identical copies?
| 7:21 pm on Mar 31, 2011 (gmt 0)|
The quote was from a blog post titled: Duplicate Content Question. [not: spun articles question]
Some details were not quoted above. Here they are:
|Some people are less conscious. The person claimed he was having problems with dupe content and not appearing in both G and Y. Turns out he had 2500 domains. A lot of people ask about articles split into parts and then printable versions. Do not worry about G penalizing for this. |
So someone asked Matt Cutts the following:
On which he clarified that 'what he was saying was' that typically a whitehat site shouldn't worry about 1-3 versions of an article on their own site.
|If this is an accurate summary, and I’m reading what you’re saying, then there’s no need to worry about duplicate content issues when submitting articles. Is that correct? |
1) The person who claimed he has problems with duplicate content spread over 2500 domains, is either a fictitious character, or has no brains and probably used a spinner the way most lazy spammers use them.
2) online & printed versions - are not spun content. They're identical copies. "about articles split into parts and then printable versions" = article spread over 3 pages, and then combined in one printable version
3) articles spread on 2500 domains are bad (evil..) - while 1-3 duplicate content pages are fine. This might suggest that 50 nicely crafted well spun pages are acceptable too.
| 4:08 am on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
OK, I think I now get it...Someone please verify my find as a sample of an article that has visited 'spinner' land one to many times:
Google the follow paragraph:
"Studies have revealed that the majority of pet cats are really not purebred. Most of them are combined with several breeds wherein as little as 3% are those that are pedigreed. However, having a non-purebred cat as a pet does not really make any difference when compared to the pedigreed pet cats."
You will see many, many articles in what I consider "garbage" websites that are basically identical with the exception of a few words that were obviously chosen by a spinner.
If this is a sample of the topic of this post, it sucks!
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 4:13 am on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Nice example evdcats, and yes, that's pretty much the topic.
It's debatable whether the sites are 'garbage' to be fair... all of them (I assume make perfect grammatical sense) convey the same message; in that sense not one variation is really better than the other.
An ideal Internet (to me) wouldn't contain duplication of information, making searching very easy, but that's not going to happen. It doesn't really make a difference whether a person or an automated script writes the 'extra' content imo.
| 3:24 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Brotherhood of LAN, So, are these articles rewritten by a machine, or has someone used a spinner to physically rewrite the articles?
The reason I called them 'garbage' sites is because they have no link to the subject matter, rather are meant to grab searchers and drive them to a page filled with ads and popups, etc..
I have a website dedicated to pets and pet news and would not consider any of the sites with the spinner articles worthy of a link posting...not one.
I think I am finally understanding why someone may want to do this, but it is a bit unscrupulous in my world.
| 7:41 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
The examples you gave seem to be spun articles (not humanly rewritten).
|are these articles rewritten by a machine, or has someone used a spinner to physically rewrite the articles |
(my firefox is ads or popups immune so I didn't notice.) To me it seems article posting for links (to other sites).
|The reason I called them 'garbage' sites is because they have no link to the subject matter, rather are meant to grab searchers and drive them to a page filled with ads and popups |
Research have revealed that the majority of pet cats are actually not purebred. Majority of them are combined with numerous breeds wherein less than 3% are those that are pedigreed. However, having a non-purebred cat as a pet does not really make any difference when compared to the pedigreed pet cats.
Studies have shown that most pet cats are really not purebred. Majority of them are mixed with numerous breeds wherein as little as 3% are those that are pedigreed. However, getting a non-purebred cat as a pet does not really make any difference in comparison with the pedigreed pet cats.
Studies have shown that most pet cats are actually not purebred. Majority of them are mixed with various breeds wherein as little as three percent are those that are pedigreed. However, owning a non-purebred cat as a pet does not really make any difference when compared to the pedigreed pet cats
A quick check with DupFree pro shows they're above 60% duplicate content with 4 or less matching parts. Lazy job.
| 8:22 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
JohnRoy, Since I am now at square two, can you help me understand the benefits of spinning articles? Is it simply to get more results from search engines? Are you hoping a newspaper or news wire will pick it up?
I assume there must be potential monetary rewards for all the work, but from where? Ads? Are all these spun articles on websites owned and managed by one person or a group of people?
If I write an article for my pets website, should I spin it and drop it in several places? I assume editors run articles through a process as you did to see if it sourced from somewhere else...
Sorry for all the questions, but this is a fascinating subject for me..Don't know why...
Thanks for your time
[edited by: tedster at 3:09 pm (utc) on Apr 12, 2011]
[edit reason] removed signature link [/edit]
| 9:03 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|I assume make perfect grammatical sense |
The examples given above are perfect examples of spun crap..
"wherein as" is totally ungrammatical..it should be simply "whereas" ..( "wherein" exists, as does "whereas" )..but not this redundant association of the two.
"non-purebred" should be in these instances "non pure breed" ( *"non-purebred" does exist, but is incorrect if used in the passages quoted above )
and "pedigreed" quite simply does not exist as a word.
Disagreement with the above corrections, I regret, demonstrates a lack of comprehension of basic English grammar ..not a divergence of opinions ..
Btw ..just in case someone replies with "being as"
( as in "being as my grade teacher told me it is OK etc " )
..it is also a nonsensical association of the two words and is totally incorrect..but many people, and doubtless their English teachers have used it, use it here and elsewhere..as with the other errors, it does not depend on which side of the Atlantic one is.
Spinning makes good or mediocre grammar and text bad, and bad grammar and text appalling..and the semi-literate think that they can write good grammatical prose or that they are able to "correct" spun text.
Disturbingly, the site spell checker here keeps telling me ( by underlining in red )that "write" should be written "rite" .which would obviously be wrong ;-)..either side of the Atlantic.
| 9:46 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|and "pedigreed" quite simply does not exist as a word. |
Actually, it does [merriam-webster.com]
But I agree- the sample is pretty bad.
| 9:58 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Again, I don't think anyone is going to contend that spun content will rate above a C grade. Whether it's all crap is a matter of opinion. Taking the example given here, I used my tool to spin several versions which I don't think come across quite as lazy as the previous efforts displayed:
|Studies have shown that a sizeable percentage of pet cats are really never purebred. A lot of them are merged with various breeds in which, as little as 3%, are the type which might be pedigreed. Even so, having a non-purebred cat for a pet will not seriously make any significant difference in comparison with pedigreed pet cats. |
Research has disclosed that a majority of pet cats are certainly never purebred. The bulk of them are combined with a variety of breeds where, as low as 3%, are those which might be pedigreed. Nevertheless, having a non-purebred cat for a pet doesn't really make any difference when compared to the pedigreed pet cats.
Research has shown that a large percentage of pet cats are really not purebred. Most of them are mixed with a variety of breeds in which, as low as 3%, are the type that happen to be pedigreed. Having said that, enjoying a non-purebred cat as a pet doesn't seriously make any difference in comparison to pedigreed pet cats.
Reports have shown that generally speaking pet cats rarely are completely purebred. Many are merged with several breeds where, as little as 3%, are those that are pedigreed. Even so, enjoying a non-purebred cat as a pet does not seriously make any significant difference when compared to the pedigreed pet cats.
These mediocre snippets, I believe, could be used four times where the objective is to crank out four sites targeting roughly the same topic. Again, quality is not the aim. Instead, it's an effort to satisfy the need to include written content on sites where the overriding agenda is to sell, as opposed to providing information.
| 10:20 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
@Life in Asia.
Sorry, but USA dictionaries don't count for the genuine English language..
And if you only use English..( as in dictionaries printed in and to be used in England ..the country of origin of the English language ) dictionaries..you won't find the illiterate word of linguistically illegitimate origins "pedigreed"..
Except in the American versions..which I'm certain are compiled in order to attempt to give an ersatz "legitimacy" to bad ungrammatical speech.
| 11:02 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Sorry, but USA dictionaries don't count for the genuine English language.. |
So "An Encyclopedia Britannica Company" is not an acceptable English language reference?!
|And if you only use English..( as in dictionaries printed in and to be used in England ..the country of origin of the English language ) dictionaries..you won't find the illiterate word of linguistically illegitimate origins "pedigreed".. |
Really? I guess you should go and check your Oxford Dictionary [oxforddictionaries.com] before making such sweeping statements.
Sheesh! No wonder the British Empire fell apart. ;)
| 11:31 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Seriously off topic ;-) ..but no..
They're both the US versions ( take a look at the m_en_us in the URL string of your link there ) especially the "us" part ..see..;-)
"The Encyclopedia Britannica Company" has been US run since before I was out of school ..and I'm pretty old ;-)
I'm going by the actual dead tree versions of the OED that I have right here beside me ..bought in the UK..England where the language comes from.
Btw..I'm not English ..but have taught it..a long time ago, to real university students..as part of another subject..wherein precise speech was of the utmost importance to understanding as my students were from many different English speaking countries..
Thus "English" English is what one uses if one wishes accurate correct grammar and also for clarity and easy comprehension, and not the deviations and abominations that pass for it in various parts of the world ( including the current UK schools and society )and even make it into certain "local" dictionaries due to the lack of grammatical rigor of the compilers.
Next you'll be telling me that "nucular" is indeed correct..and that I should realise that realise should be written as realize..as the quasi-illiterate spell checker insists it hold be.
Distortion of language should be accepted as distortion and done deliberately in full acknowledgement of the errors and distortions..merely because incorrect forms of speech become the norm, does not make them correct.
And yes, language does and should and will evolve..but evolve means to grow and become better and adapt ..not to degrade and sink back to the lowest common denominator level of semi-illiteracy, whether it be in human written prose or machine spun advertising copy..
One does not adapt and improve and evolve by making ones speech or writing appear literate merely by re-writing dictionaries ( or content ) to give the appearance of erudition.
And in the context of search engines it doesn't work ..inspite of the protestations of some posters here ..if it did they would be keeping quiet and counting their money ..instead of hoping that someone has better spinner ( old "tech" that may have fooled ATW and even Google .once a long time ago ) than the one they have whose wares have just become sidelined..and who don't know how to write original unique quality content themselves .. or who have depended on a spinner for so long that they have forgotten how ..if they ever knew.
Human spinning works ( for now ) and is cheap and is ( for now ) one of the current flavours ..just ask ehow. ;-)
[edited by: Leosghost at 11:49 pm (utc) on Apr 4, 2011]
| 11:45 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Not off topic- just spinning it. ;)
|take a look at the m_en_us in the URL string of your link there ) especially the "us" part ..see |
Okay, but same results for the world version [oxforddictionaries.com] See the "gb" part?
|I'm going by the actual dead tree versions of the OED that I have right here beside me |
Well that's out of date before it even hits the printing press.
|Next you'll be telling me that "nucular" is indeed correct |
Nope- I ain't NEVER going to say that! :)
| 11:57 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Go60Guy, I think this sums it up pretty well for me.
|These mediocre snippets, I believe, could be used four times where the objective is to crank out four sites targeting roughly the same topic. Again, quality is not the aim. Instead, it's an effort to satisfy the need to include written content on sites where the overriding agenda is to sell, as opposed to providing information. |
This has been a learning experience for me and I appreciate everyone taking time to give me detailed answers. My focus is pets and pet information, not shoveling out spun stories to make a dollar. Nothing wrong with making a dollar, but stuff like this—IMHO—is nothing more than turds in the punch-bowl.
Thanks again. I'm glad I made it to square two...
| This 68 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 68 ( 1  3 ) > > |