Talk:Article spinning/Archives/2017

Complaint

This article is completely biased and not objectively noting the multiple kinds of article spinning. Ripping off other sites content and rewriting it is a form of spam. Using article spinning to rewrite your own articles then submitting the spun versions to article directories is a completely legal and ethical (debatable) way to avoid Google and other search engines ignoring 99% of your submissions.

Hi! I rewrote parts of this article (see my edits) based on the original article text and some sources I found by searching online; however, I'm certainly not an expert in this area. If the article is incorrect or incomplete (which it probably is), I would really appreciate if you could correct any deficiencies. I think reliable sources would be especially useful, since the ones in the article could certainly use some bolstering. If you haven't edited Wikipedia before, there is a lot of information at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia and editors answer questions at the Help desk. If there's anything I can help you with, you can leave a message on my talk page. Thanks --Kateshortforbob 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is entirely biased. It takes the only position that article spinning is necessarily spam, necessarily plagiarized from other websites, necessarily impossible to do in a manner which produces quality spun articles. It also puts forth an opinion of how effective article spinning is with google, which even if correct today would most certainly be incorrect tomorrow.

"Contrary to popular opinion, Google does not penalize web sites that have duplicated content on it, but the advances in filtering techniques mean that duplicate content will rarely feature well in SERPS". Tell me exactly how rarely featuring well in SERPS isn't a penalty? That statement contradicts itself. Nobody knows google's algorithms, period. So, as long as we're injecting biased opinions about how google considers the effectiveness of spinning articles, I'll toss in my hat and say from my own personal experience that google absolutely rewards a good article spinner with high SERPS and lots of visitors.

There are many examples of legitimate reasons for spinning. One of those reasons ... Affiliate websites. There are companies out there with affiliate programs. They give you product descriptions and want you to promote their product. Unfortunately, their descriptions are the same as they give to hundreds of other affiliates. You could rewrite every description by hand, or you could spin them. I've got over 100k descriptions to spin on my current project. Its my job to shuffle the descriptions around enough to get them considered unique content. I'll analyze and swap some words and phrases randomly that I think can be swapped. I'll randomly insert generic sentences that represent the categories each product belong to. When its done, it will be quality and as though a human had written it.

So what is it I just did? It can't be article spinning, because if it were article spinning my content would be stolen, right? If it were article spinning, the end results wouldn't be readable by a human, right? If it were article spinning, it would be plagiarized, right? So what exactly should I call it what I'm doing? (Sarcasm by the way).

All email spammers are spammers. Not all people who use email are spammers. All article spinning spammers are spammers. Not all article spinners are spammers.

I was looking for a word swapping php script and this page showed up near #1 for article spinning. It is truly a disservice to anyone who finds it, any newbie researching article spinning and finding this article will be at a severe disadvantage because of its bias. A spammer is going to spam regardless of the bias of this author, though someone who needs to spin with legitimate purposes may be dissuaded by this article and it's unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.84.106.141 (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I confirm the complaint that's been expressed above. English is not my mother tongue, I'm French, but we're still seeing undeniably good results and long-term results with this technique, I have tons of examples. And there are legit companies in this field, like content-spinning.services (in english), they offer high-end article spinning services. If you look at these success cases they had with content spinning in 2016 and 2017 you will see that it's not detected/penalized by Google when it's well done. So, the assumption that it's not working anymore since 2013 should be proven or deleted. What do you think? Zigota (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)