Tag: Spin Rewriter

Today’s message is brought to you by our new JV manager, Jacob — and it’s going to be a little bit longer, because it’s REALLY important that he gets this message across.

“Lately we’ve been getting a ton of questions from our users about the new “revolutionary article spinners” that started popping up ever since last autumn. They usually claim that all you need to do is copy your article into one of these “spinners” and you get a unique version of the article — although it still has the exact same content. This sounds really strange, so let me say it again. The article still looks completely the same to human eyes, but — supposedly — unique to the eyes of search engines.

By this point, you might be thinking along the lines of  “This is great stuff, no more worries with all these synonyms and other potential problems with readability and overall quality of my articles”. And here’s another fact — some of these so called “spinners” are even free, whereas others charge up to $30 a month.

Because I really wanted to know how this is possible, I started to do my own research. I’ve contacted many developers of such “spinners” and discovered that if something sounds too good to be true, then it usually simply isn’t … well, true. These spinners started out simply by replacing characters from your default character set with ASCII characters which — again, supposedly — made the content look unique. The reality is, this might have worked for some time, but the trick was discovered by all major search engines almost instantly and it doesn’t work anymore. If it ever did work in the first place.

They have now invented something new, although they’re basically still doing the same thing. They change the encoding of your article and make sure that your original keywords are left intact. This way, your keywords stay the same in Google’s eyes whereas all your other text changes — but only from search engine perspective. Humans can still read the article no problem, as it still looks completely the same as the original.

What is this “encoding” that I’m talking about? Well, we’ve written something  about this subject on the official SpinRewriter blog previously, here. As you know, computers remember everything with zeros (0) and ones (1). You can’t write the letter “A” to the hard drive — you need to convert it to zeros and ones. This means that when you’re using one encoding, the letter “A” is represented by the number “65” — this is called ASCII. When you’re using another encoding, you might be using another number. Your readers always see the “A”, however your computer (and search engines) see different numbers.

Well, it doesn’t STOP search engines from detecting this content as duplicate any more than it stops your web browser from displaying the exact same text to you. An “A” is always an “A”.

For instance, there’s this Czech auto maker called Škoda. You can write this as “Škoda”, as “Škoda”, as “U+0160koda”, as “#352;koda” and so on. But ultimately, it doesn’t matter — no matter what encoding you used, when you type “Škoda” or even “Skoda” (with an “S”) into Google, Bing and Yahoo, you will always get all of these results. Because Google isn’t retarded — it’s sole purpose for the first 5 years was text processing, and it knows how to process text. Trust us on this one. 🙂

It’s true, spinning articles the “old fashion way” takes some more time, although Spin Rewriter does most of the work for you. However, because your article is well spun in the end, you don’t have to worry about Google recognizing your articles as spun after every algorithm change (if Google ever penalizes articles that have been spun with Spin Rewriter, it’s going to penalize manually rewritten content as well — in other words, not gonna happen).

I really wanted you to see the whole picture here. If you believe that you can profit more than you risk with these novelty approaches, then go for it — this is still just my opinion. However, once you look at the inner workings of these new approaches, they are absolutely see-through and won’t make your content any more unique… at all.“

– Jacob