I get asked this question quite a lot, and so I thought I'd do a quick post to try and explain it to those that are new to spinning, and the math involved...

Essentially, the %unique number quoted by most software is a variable function; it's worked out differently by different software developers, and there doesn't seem to be any particular standard.

The main problem is that it doesn't incorporate any kind of permutation calculation. i.e. it doesn't tell you how MANY unique versions are available.

If you take this spun block:

{Some text|Some more text|Some different text|Some even more different text}.

...Then most spinners will give you a 100% unique rating, because 100% of it is spun! But clearly, this 100% spun 'article' would be useless for mass submission, because there are only 4 permutations (different end results).

It's the same with paragraph spinning... Take this example of 2 para's, each with 4 spins:

{Para 1|Para 2|Para 3|Para 4}.

{Para 5|Para 6|Para 7|Para 8}.

We have 100% uniqueness at article level, and 100% uniqueness at para level, but we only have 4 permutations at para level, and 4x4 = 16 permutations at article level. Still useless for mass submission!

Even if you have 6 paragraphs and have 4 versions of each, you only have 4^6 permutations (4x4x4x4x4x4) = 4,096 article permutations. BUT you still only have 4 permutations at paragraph level.

I always calculate permutations at paragraph level, because it provides a more sensible idea of 'longevity' of a spun construct. It's pointless telling yourself you've got 4096 variations in the 2nd example above, when a large percentage of these are only differing by a small amount.

It's why standard 25-50% autospins at word-level yield fairly low numbers of truly unique articles.

However...

If you created 3 extra rewrites of each sentence, and used 3 sentences per paragraph, and then braces/spintax spin each sentence into 5 chunks/parts/phrases with 4 total spins each...

...then you have nearly 69 Billion permutations of that paragraph alone (4^5 x 4 = 4096: 4096^3 = 68.7B.)

If you have 10 paragraphs, and only use 5 of them in a mixed/random order, then this number gets gigantic. To all intents and purposes, you'll be able to use it almost indefinitely. I have constructs like this that I built 5 years ago that are still going strong after a full 1-2k blast use EVERY WEEK.

It's why spinning has to take on a new face with today's SEO. I implemented this technology about 5 years ago and coined the phrase '3D Hyper Spinning' - because you're working in 3 dimensions; multiple paragraph substitution, sentence rewriting, and spintax inside sentences. I implemented this in our 'UberCubez' module ( http://www.ubertoolz.com/UberCubezCreation.html ) as many of you on BHW will know, as a lot of our members come from here.

Relying on a simple uniqueness% is very dangerous for mass submission, and could be why many members get lower indexing than they expect; simply because they haven't understood the math behind spinning. Full permutation & combination math gets extraordinarily complicated to explain, so I'm not going to get into detail on calculating the actual numbers. But hopefully this example will open the door to a basic understanding for some members.

I always spin my articles paragraph (3x), sentence (3x) and word level to achieve that crazy permutation. It gets very tedious because it takes me about 4-6 hours to do one 500 words article alone.

What does ubercubez do really? Is it a tool? Does it help me to automate my spinning process? Tell me more.

EDIT: I just went through the site and videos, looks really awesome with multiple functionalities.

To check how unique your spins are you can use SpinnerChief's batch compare feature. I recently created a bunch of mixed and spun articles and the highest similarity i got was 20%. That tool compares each article to every other article so i think that i got some good results.

i just read ur complete post(Ctrl+C) and also the tool page , very informative

i have using similar strategy as your tool but with my own conventions and systems which really ease up the rewriting process and you get high uniqueness .one need to understand the flow of the content , make a plan,structure it and then write

thanks for sharing

What does ubercubez do really? Is it a tool? Does it help me to automate my spinning process? Tell me more.

I can't sum up UberCubez in a few words; it's an enormously powerful hyper-spinning construct creator. Check out the demo at:

http://www.ubertoolz.com/demo/UberCubez.php

...and the creation guidelines at:

http://www.ubertoolz.com/UberCubezCreation.html

Simply (!?) put, it is an extended {braces|spintax} article that has been created and laid out in a specific way. The key features are:

1. It has multiple re-writes of each sentence, each with a different grammatical/sentence structure. You can have as many sentence re-writes as you want, but typically there should be 3-6 versions.
2. Each sentence re-write is individually {nested {braces-spun|spun}} at word/phrase level. Typically, you don't really need nested spinning here.
3. It has many more paragraphs than it needs, (typically double to triple the number,) each of which are written as an isolated micro-topic - so they can be used in a different order, and remain readable.
4. When it is actually output by our software, it only uses X paragraphs out of the entire construct, in a mixed order; with often the first, and sometimes the last paragraph locked in place.

It basically provides a way of easily editing and maintaining hyper-spinning constructs via a simple txt file. So you can do it anywhere, and aren't reliant upon any particular editor.

It outputs the articles as standard spintax subsets; so that you have a smaller and more portable sub-set of the full construct which can be used in any submission software: like AMR, SENuke or Zenno etc.

One thing I would like to know is how readable is the spun content that UberCubez generates compared to other spinning tools?

Originally Posted by nickt

One thing I would like to know is how readable is the spun content that UberCubez generates compared to other spinning tools?

UberCubez doesn't create new content; it provides a framework for easy editing of large structures. So it's as readable as you write it...

Hope that makes senses!

If you check out our BST thread: http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackha...lset-live.html

.. you'lll see loads of posts from members who are using it; that may help you get some different angles on it.

That's an interesting new approach to spinning and I'll definitely take a look into it. But I think it's worth noting that article uniqueness % is not always calculated by how many words are spun. SENuke is an example of a program that will tell you the uniqueness % by comparing the article with other spin variations of itself. Something like {Hello|Hi|Hey} will not give you 100% uniqueness in SENuke. However, TBS calculates it differently (basing it on how many words are spun) and will claim it's 100% unique. So it really comes down to what program you are using to evaluate it's uniqueness.

Originally Posted by Altimit

That's an interesting new approach to spinning and I'll definitely take a look into it. But I think it's worth noting that article uniqueness % is not always calculated by how many words are spun. SENuke is an example of a program that will tell you the uniqueness % by comparing the article with other spin variations of itself. Something like {Hello|Hi|Hey} will not give you 100% uniqueness in SENuke. However, TBS calculates it differently (basing it on how many words are spun) and will claim it's 100% unique. So it really comes down to what program you are using to evaluate it's uniqueness.

That's true Altimit, but the key point here is that NONE of them can or do use any kind of calculation which tells you HOW MANY versions you'll get at that level of uniqueness.

The number of permutations is far more important than the uniqueness between a couple of hundred or even thousand. This is what gives a construct it's longevity and ability to continually produce indexable content.

The whole point of this thread is to get people thinking about more than just a uniqueness% which as I've shown tells you very little about how useful a spintax construct is. And many people rely on this number to tell them they're using something that will get them lots of unique versions.

I had several articles that were Infinity spun (and not broken)
In SEnuke they had a perfect 100% uniqueness on a 16 article comparison, granted i don't use SEnuke for anything but to check article uniqueness these days

Uniqueness is the most overated thing since Google. I do article blast with 100% copied ezine articles. All I do is put in my links with my keywords in the article to increase the keyword density.

Originally Posted by Mr. $EO

Uniqueness is the most overated thing since Google. I do article blast with 100% copied ezine articles. All I do is put in my links with my keywords in the article to increase the keyword density.

You sound like you're making $10k/day... can I buy your WSO?

Originally Posted by Expertpeon

You sound like you're making $10k/day... can I buy your WSO?

Aah... The bitter-sweet smell of sarcasm...

Originally Posted by Expertpeon

You sound like you're making $10k/day... can I buy your WSO?

I wish I was making 10k/day...and yea, if you want you can buy my WSO, but I don't tend to sell WSO's to fellow ballers.

On that note. I don't do normal mass article submission, like AMR or SENUKE, that might explain why my method works well.

thanks op ive just started spinning my own articles this week perfect timing reading this thread

So say I construct one of these monsters, and it has 10 middle paragraphs of which I'm going to use 4 each Uber shuffle, plus a first and last paragraph that won't change.

I then rewrite each sentence 2 times for a total of three, then synonym and phrase spin those at least twice variations where applicable. I write some twenty titles and spin those.

How many copies can I safely post into the cyber sphere before they step on each others toes? How often should I re-shuffle the spin construct? I'm looking for a ballpark figure.

In the past I have aimed these right at my money sites but only put out maybe 1-200 copies total for fear of killing my money sites...

Originally Posted by oneder

So say I construct one of these monsters, and it has 10 middle paragraphs of which I'm going to use 4 each Uber shuffle, plus a first and last paragraph that won't change.

I then rewrite each sentence 2 times for a total of three, then synonym and phrase spin those at least twice variations where applicable. I write some twenty titles and spin those.

How many copies can I safely post into the cyber sphere before they step on each others toes? How often should I re-shuffle the spin construct? I'm looking for a ballpark figure.

In the past I have aimed these right at my money sites but only put out maybe 1-200 copies total for fear of killing my money sites...

I can't even get close to an estimate without the exact figures and dimensions of a construct. The math is complex! And it takes a long time to work it through, so I can't sit here working it out for everyone. Believe it or not, I've had 6 PMs all asking me to work out their permutations!

You can get a rough idea by following my example in the 1st post through...

average spintax variations in a sentence chunk ^ average sentence chunks/parts per sentence

X the average number of sentence rewrites

All THAT ^ the number of sentences in a paragraph.

^ means 'to the power of' so 2^4 means 2x2x2x2

Breaking the sentence into sensible chunks/phrases and doing spins on them is an important part in getting the volume up, unless you do a lot of sentence rewrites, but you get more variation per word written (I.e. it's more efficient in terms of workload) by doing phrase spintax inside sentences.

The paragraph substitution and reordering is much more complex because that involves different combinations, not just straight permutations of a fixed sized system.

Just work it out at paragraph level anyway; you'll get a more 'honest' answer!

please let me know for unique content writing and almost pay nothing!
cheers!

great

very informative thread for those who has just started spinning own articles

I have a question, I'm not sure if I'm missing it.
I don't fully understand #SB#, maybe it is it....

but if I have a 1000 word article and 10 paragraphs, is there any way to create the article so it will do {par1|par2} etc, and each out put would do random of the 10?
Because from my understanding in Construct, and I put output to say "5", it will pick 5 random from the 10, and output a spintax article. So if I then submit that to say 100 sites, it will be the same 5 paragraphs until I create another random Constuct. Am I understanding that wrong? Or will that, when submitted, submit 5 random paragraphs from the 10 every single time?

Originally Posted by jon_xx_x

I have a question, I'm not sure if I'm missing it.
I don't fully understand #SB#, maybe it is it....

but if I have a 1000 word article and 10 paragraphs, is there any way to create the article so it will do {par1|par2} etc, and each out put would do random of the 10?
Because from my understanding in Construct, and I put output to say "5", it will pick 5 random from the 10, and output a spintax article. So if I then submit that to say 100 sites, it will be the same 5 paragraphs until I create another random Constuct. Am I understanding that wrong? Or will that, when submitted, submit 5 random paragraphs from the 10 every single time?

It should spit out 5 random paragraphs out of the 10 each time, in theory.

Well I just tested, and it does for the output, but not if you create the spintax form.
So if I have 10 paragraphs and select 5, it will just use five random ones.

Originally Posted by jon_xx_x

Well I just tested, and it does for the output, but not if you create the spintax form.
So if I have 10 paragraphs and select 5, it will just use five random ones.

The UberCubez module uses random paragraphs, in a random order for the individual outputs, but it's physically impossible to create a spintax structure that does that. It's one of the reasons you need the UberCube construct in the first place.

All spintax can do is provide random alternatives in a serial format. It doesn't have program logic to be able to randomly select 5 out of 10 paragraphs and then select X of each sentence variation and then randomly mix the order of the paragraph sequence.

The UberCube construct has the variation required to create hundreds or thousands of spintax sub-constructs. So it will randomly select the paragraphs used, and the order to place them in, and you tell it how many of the sentence rewrites to use out of the total available, and then create that spintax construct, with all the original sentence spintax embedded. That construct is like any other well constructed spintax block, which uses sentence rewrites. But the paragraph order HAS to be fixed, as spintax doesn't contain logic or program statements to handle conditional functionality.

So you use that spintax output for a submission run of a few thousand, and then you output a new spintax construct, which will have different paragraphs in a different order with different sentence rewrites.

There is no submitter out there which will handle the kind of logic controls that UberCubez require; that's why it was created to output standard spintax structures for the likes of AMR, SENuke, ZennoPoster etc...

...It provides the 'bridge' between hyper-spinning and the standard spintax construct.

Hope that makes sense!

I have a question. When you do an article contrstruct from article sources, can I create multiple versions of it, or does each version more or less use a lot of the articles?
I mean, say for ex I use 3 articles to construct a 3 paragraph article. Will it take 1 paragraph from each article? so if I "go back" and create another using the same articles, it will likely choose one of the different paragraphs in each article?
Or is it so random that it uses multiple paragrahs per article?

Originally Posted by Mr. $EO

I wish I was making 10k/day...and yea, if you want you can buy my WSO, but I don't tend to sell WSO's to fellow ballers.

On that note. I don't do normal mass article submission, like AMR or SENUKE, that might explain why my method works well.

So you wanna say,that you aren't doing it for SEO propouse,right?

Ive found that it is very niche related to how well your spun articles index. But logic says the more unique the better your chances of gaining a quality back linkk

Pretty useful stuff all around, but you really have to work on your sales page and product info page. It looks like it was made ten years ago and it doesn't look professional at all. On the other hand, great article and thanks for the info.

While I agree with the main message of your post the mathematics behind it are incorrect. That's pretty irrelevant but let me explain what I mean. When you spin, you have words or n-grams that repeat themselves within a block. In other words you will have:

{was going|will be going|am going}

While you have 3 different options, each of them uses 'going' which in turn has high changes of producing a similar partial n-gram.

That aside, even simple 1-level spinning can produce thousands of articles and still remain at around 40-50% uniqueness. I did a test - check it out here.

Using multi-level spinning will not only increase the number of articles you can produce but more importantly it will increase uniqueness score. In other words, the only way to increase uniqueness is to use multi-level spinning. Even if you spin just 50 times, uniqueness of articles generated from a 1-level seed is still the usual 40-50%.

Now, when you do 3-level spinning (paragraphs, sentences, words) you increase uniqueness and the number of articles you can generate. However, the number of articles you can generate while high, it will reach a tipping point where uniqueness will start to drop from the usual 70% to lower. However, it will remain above a certain uniqueness (in my experience never drops below 30%).

All the mathematics however is irrelevant. Why? Because Google doesn't use an algorithm like the one used by CopyScape - that would be too processing intensive. While Google can figure to a certain degree how similar several pages are, id doesn't penalize you because they are similar. That's teh reason why crappy content, poorly spun or downright stolen from other sites, ranks just fine if you point some good links at it. Authority is a much important factor when deciding the SERPs. That is why while all news sites basically have the same information, only the authority ones will rank high.

I do, just like you, recommend multi-level spinning. I have absolutely amazing seed articles (tens of thousands of words). As a matter of fact over the past year I have produces over half of million words worth of spintax. That will cover my content needs for this niche forever. However, I consider the detail of the math as you present it are incorrect. Again, it is something irrelevant in practice, though.

You might also want to read this post of mine.

Treating them as a permutation is just fine to figure out possible combinations, though I suppose that actual number is fairly irrelevant in reality.

I have generated 150 page single spintaxes for tier 2 articles (readable and decent content) but I have never really experienced the positive effects you describe from crappy first tier content. Actually, grammatically incorrect content seems:
1) hard to get indexed
2) impossible to rank
3) highly likely to damage whatever effort you put in making something.

On a huge, huge scale, with 10s of thousands of web 2.0s being created per day all day long, sure, I could see where #3 would be a bit irrelevant, but I have a feeling there's much more going on here than meets the eye as far as spun content and google.

I'm fairly certain high levels of content are treated differently though, and certainly there are many, many other advantages to them. Even mid level content (highly readable and highly spun, taking only hours to create 150 pages of spintax, with over 60,000 words) can be attained easily. I created 4 such articles for a niche, one of my most profitable, and I have content forever, and it won't even get accounts banned.

My problem with assuming content can be valued the same no matter how poorly it is spun is that, even if this is correct, is incredibly clear that double web 2.0 pyramids simply work far better. As a result, it takes something like 4 days just to process a 10k tier 1 link pyramid and completely build it (more if you use other things like pliggs/wikis into tier 1)

What kind of excuse can you use for not using good content for tier 1 when you have to spend 4 additional days just building the rest? especially if (as I highly suggest) you are using high PR blog posts and web 2.0s for tier 1.

Originally Posted by madoctopus

While I agree with the main message of your post the mathematics behind it are incorrect. That's pretty irrelevant but let me explain what I mean. When you spin, you have words or n-grams that repeat themselves within a block. In other words you will have:

{was going|will be going|am going}

While you have 3 different options, each of them uses 'going' which in turn has high changes of producing a similar partial n-gram.

That aside, even simple 1-level spinning can produce thousands of articles and still remain at around 40-50% uniqueness. I did a test - check it out here.

Using multi-level spinning will not only increase the number of articles you can produce but more importantly it will increase uniqueness score. In other words, the only way to increase uniqueness is to use multi-level spinning. Even if you spin just 50 times, uniqueness of articles generated from a 1-level seed is still the usual 40-50%.

Now, when you do 3-level spinning (paragraphs, sentences, words) you increase uniqueness and the number of articles you can generate. However, the number of articles you can generate while high, it will reach a tipping point where uniqueness will start to drop from the usual 70% to lower. However, it will remain above a certain uniqueness (in my experience never drops below 30%).

All the mathematics however is irrelevant. Why? Because Google doesn't use an algorithm like the one used by CopyScape - that would be too processing intensive. While Google can figure to a certain degree how similar several pages are, id doesn't penalize you because they are similar. That's teh reason why crappy content, poorly spun or downright stolen from other sites, ranks just fine if you point some good links at it. Authority is a much important factor when deciding the SERPs. That is why while all news sites basically have the same information, only the authority ones will rank high.

I do, just like you, recommend multi-level spinning. I have absolutely amazing seed articles (tens of thousands of words). As a matter of fact over the past year I have produces over half of million words worth of spintax. That will cover my content needs for this niche forever. However, I consider the detail of the math as you present it are incorrect. Again, it is something irrelevant in practice, though.

You might also want to read this post of mine.

@Expertpeon - producing gramatically correct content that however makes no sense is not very difficult. I never used crap content for money sites though. And the reason for that is very simple - my content has to make the visitors convert.

I recently tried an experiment where I wrote about 2k words to generate just a 150 word article. The 2k words consisted of a construct that broke up each sentence into 10 to as many as 20 alternatives. Each sentence then had about 3-5 phrase or word variations.

When I plugged this into the spinner, I ran out of 100% unique content (checked against copyscape private index) just after 8 spins. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? I mean, I am not able to get even 10 original articles out of this format when I have actually written 10 original articles in the spintax format itself.

I didn't do any paragraph level spinning. Could that be the reason?

Good post, but I'm sure the math behind it went way over some people's head.

1 thing I would like to add: People are happy when one of their spun article's variation passes CS. They set out to blast it everywhere. Good.

But they don't think about the duplication within multiple variations of these articles.

With multilevel spinning, this problem can be overcome easily.

Take this snippet for example:

{I {represent|entail|require|be thinking about|mean}, you're {immediately|merely|emphatically|just} {with|by means of|via|by|using} a {speedy|quick} {join|stick|tight spot|set a date for|fix} that doesn't {perform|achieve|accomplish|solve|do} a {distinct|unattached|single} {entity|gadget|machine|fixation|thing} to {obtain|acquire|engage|assume|take} {be bothered|precision|thoughtfulness|be concerned|care} of the {real|definite|genuine|authentic|actual} {glitch|crisis|predicament|obstruction|problem}; the hole.|Some of the methods {establish|originate|found} to {ensue|live|be} {effectual|operational|operative|efficient|effecti ve} in treating cystic {spots|bad skin|a skin condition|acne} {comprise|contain|include} the following.|Maybe {equal|unchanging|still|steady|even} 10 {extra|additional|added|further|more} years.|So is this {medicinal|remedial|medical} {actuality|information|piece of evidence|statement|fact} {before|otherwise|or} {medicinal|remedial|medical} opinion?|Just about {every person|all|each one|each person|everyone} who has {useless|worn-out|tired|exhausted|spent} their lives looking in the mirror {next to|by the side of|on|by|at} their reflection {just|simply} to {ensue|live|be} confronted by a face {gripped|absorbed|occupied|held|engrossed} in {hives|itchiness|inflammation|irritation|pimples}, are researching for ways to {absolutely|wholly|entirely|finally|completely} {receiving|being paid|in receipt of|getting} {exonerate|relieve|divest|clear|rid} of acne fast.} {Consequently, the {additional|added|further|more} {time and again|repeatedly|a lot|frequently|often} they {delete|scrub} their face {scour|spick and span|spotless|sparkling|clean}, the {fewer|less} the likelihood of acne outbreaks.|Ultimately, the {weighty|focal|significant|important} {entity|gadget|machine|fixation|thing} is that you institute facials {by|on} a {expected|frequent|repeated|regular} basis.|What I {exposed|open|naked|bare|discovered} was that these products worked {quite|positively|literally|fairly} {thriving|fine|satisfactorily|anyway|well} {taking place|proceeding|by|resting on|on} my skin and {equal|unchanging|steady|even} {top|outshine|enhanced|healthier|better}, I {to finish|at last|at length|conclusively|finally} {may possibly|might|can|possibly will|could} stop moisturizing ten {era|time|epoch|period|times} a day.|These {useful|functional|doable|sensible|practical} steps will {allow|make possible|permit|facilitate|enable} you {uncontrolled|limitless|emancipated|free} yourself from cystic {spots|bad skin|a skin condition|acne} and {too|also} {lessen|lower|degrade|drive down|reduce} the chances of recurrence.|Such breakouts may {ensue|live|be} seen {on|by|at} birth, {still|then again|yet|nonetheless|however} it can {obtain|acquire|engage|assume|take} {positive|cheery|awake|in the lead|up} to six weeks after your baby is {natural|intuitive|untaught|instinctive|born}, {in the past|formerly|more willingly than|facing|before} you {activate|arise|begin} to {distinguish|comprehend|see} {cherry|ruby|scarlet|burgundy|red} patches {before|otherwise|or} bumps.} {Refrain from rubbing {before|otherwise|or} {sad|heartrending|affecting|poignant|touching} your skin lesions.|It has been sold {beneath|underneath|below|less than|under} {some|a number of|more than a few|quite a few|several} brand names including NutraSweet and AminoSweet.|If you {attain|find} that these {ended|above|over} the {counteract|oppose|defy|counter} remedies {perform|achieve|accomplish|solve|do} not {do|composition|labor|job|work} {at that moment|next|so therefore|in that case|then} it is {calculate|time} to consult your doctor, who will prescribe {a bit|a little|a touch|impressive|something} stronger for you to try.|In {adding|adding up|adding together|totaling|addition} to it's anti-inflammatory properties it {too|also} increases the synthesis of collagen, keratin, involucrin, and flaggrin, reduces skin hyper-pigmentation, increases skin {damp|humidity|dampness|wetness|moisture} and reduces {sunny|warm|thin|fine} wrinkles.|Vitamin A is another of the {elemental|vital|crucial|essential} nutrients that are {controlled|enclosed|limited|restricted|contained} in cod liver oil.} {I looked {lofty|prohibitive|high} and {short|subdued|unhappy|low} {next to|by the side of|on|by|at} all kinds of skin tips and acne {inland|home} remedies.|Obviously, an {contaminated|infected|dirty|tainted|unclean} {group|corpus|corpse|stiff|body} is {additional|added|further|more} {flat|lying on your front|lying face down|level|prone} to chest acne, and acne {by|on} {additional|new|further|supplementary|other} parts of the body.|When the paste is {complete|prompt|ready}, {be relevant|relate|be appropriate|be valid|apply} it {by|on} the {exaggerated|pretentious|precious|artificial|affec ted} areas in a circular {movement|beckon|signal|wave|motion} {representing|used for|on behalf of|in support of|for} {on|by|at} {slightest|least} 20 seconds, when this is {completed|made|complete|through|done}, {abandon|ditch|donate|vacation|leave} the paste {practical|functional|useful|applied} {taking place|proceeding|by|resting on|on} the {exaggerated|pretentious|precious|artificial|affec ted} {region|locale|quarter|zone|area} for a {greatest|most|maximum} of 20 {transcription|notes|transcript|record|minutes} {next|then} {bear|stain|suffusion|shower|wash} the paste {rotten|sour|inedible|rancid|off} with {spotless|clean} water.|Even when {normal|usual|standard|square|conventional} medications are {effectual|operational|efficient|effective}, they are {just|simply} {wrapper|cover|casing|top|covering} {positive|cheery|awake|up} the symptoms of a {additional|added|further|more} {general|well-known|extensive|common|widespread} imbalance {inside|within} the body.|Chemical Peels- These will {take out|do away with|amputate|subtract|remove} the {dull|uninteresting|empty|dead} skin and expose {clean|juicy|warm|breezy|fresh} skin {steadily|little by little|progressively|slowly|gradually} removing the visibility of your scars.} {This is not {every one|each and every one|every|every one of|all}, {data|information|figures|info|statistics} {illustrate|confirm|show} that people in UK spend {extra|additional|added|further|more} than 2 billion pounds a year {by|on} skin treatments and {near|practically|virtually|nearly} {partially|semi|partly|half} of this goes {on|toward} acne medication.|Water {too|as well|in addition|and|also} keeps the skin moisturized.|Filler Substances: {Near|There} are {discrete|changed|different} {stuffing|protective material|space filler|wadding|filler} substances that can {avoid|stop|assistance|evade|help} you to {lessen|lower|degrade|reduce} the scars' appearance.|Unfortunately, it causes {very|particularly|tremendously|enormously|extreme ly} {dry out|sardonic|laconic|dried out|dry} skin and the skin becomes red and blotchy.|But {piquant|tough|stalwart|heavy-duty|strong} {sign|facts|demonstrate|proof|evidence} has emerged {ended|above|over} the years that eating a {lofty|prohibitive|high} GI diet can {boost|expand|increase in intensity|build up|increase} the incidence of acne in {spots|bad skin|a skin condition|acne} prone people.} {This includes {meager|humble|impoverished|bad|poor} {sanitation|cleanliness|hygiene}, {height|rank|glassy|parallel with the ground|level} of stress, {laughable|defective|imperfect|insufficient|inadeq uate} {sustenance|diet|food|nourishment}, hormonal changes, {recurrent|continuing|serial|regular|seasonal} changes, {victuals|chow|foodstuff|groceries|food} allergies and heredity.|Pollutants {comparable|similar to|approximating|in the vein of|like}, cigarette smoke and air pollution, ultraviolet {energy|waves|heat|emission|rays}, and {equal|unchanging|steady|even} stress.|Ungvita, {bring into being|establish|originate|set up|found} in your {restricted|regional|local} chemist {before|otherwise|or} drug {put in storage|warehouse|lumber room|amass|store} is a {fantastic|abundant|enormous|vast|great} {effect|merchandise|outcome|creation|product} {worn|old|used} {specially|purposely|exclusively|particularly|spec ifically} {representing|used for|on behalf of|in support of|for} all types of skin damage.|This is a {unaffected|organic|ecological|real|natural} {spots|bad skin|a skin condition|acne} treatment that you can {appraise|endeavor|take a crack at|test|try} out.|The {reply|respond|react|come back with|answer} to that {examine|question} is {equally|together|mutually|both} a "yes" and a "no".} {For {ruthless|awful|rigorous|terrible|severe} and {heartbreaking|laborious|painful} {spots|bad skin|a skin condition|acne} a consultation with a dermatologist is recommended.|This {dealing|management|handling|healing|treatment} works {greatest|paramount|finest|best} when {practical|functional|useful|applied} {all|each|every} {additional|new|further|supplementary|other} {calendar day|era|sunlight hours|day of the week|day} {formerly|before} {bottom|border|divan|stratum|bed}, and it should lead to the disappearance of cystic {spots|bad skin|a skin condition|acne} lesions after a few weeks.|I {too|as well|in addition|and|also} exfoliated weekly {exclusive of|with no|lacking|devoid of|without} fail, which {countless|many} women {perform|achieve|accomplish|solve|do} not {perform|achieve|accomplish|solve|do}, {except|excluding|on the contrary|nevertheless|but} which does {compose|achieve|make} a {cumbersome|substantial|big} {discrepancy|disparity|modification|dissimilarity| difference} as the {dull|uninteresting|empty|dead} skin cells {perform|achieve|accomplish|solve|do} not {bog|mire|fen|quagmire|slough} {rotten|sour|inedible|rancid|off} as efficiently {taking place|proceeding|by|resting on|on} mature skins.|Tomatoes are {too|also} {safe|nice|clear|sunny|good} {representing|used for|on behalf of|in support of|for} helping with acne scars, not by {consumption|drinking|intake|ingestion|eating} them, {except|excluding|on the contrary|nevertheless|but} by applying them {precisely|soon|straightforwardly|directly} to your face.|Why {perform|achieve|accomplish|solve|do} we constantly {distinguish|comprehend|think about it|spot|see} commercials of ridiculously {striking|charming|exquisite|magnificent|beautiful } models who's acne problems are {absolutely|wholly|entirely|finally|completely} cured with XYZ cream?}

The complete snippet is 808 words. Yes, this is just a paragraph.

Now, I took 4 variations (each was about 150-200 words) of this, plugged in DupeCop, and the resuts:



Pretty awesome, right?

Originally Posted by madoctopus

@Expertpeon - producing gramatically correct content that however makes no sense is not very difficult. I never used crap content for money sites though. And the reason for that is very simple - my content has to make the visitors convert.

Sure, but again, I'm a bit agast that you'd link into your sites with poorly spun stuff.
I do 15 sentence hand spun articles, 25-30k words for tier 1 content, and it only takes 3-4 hours.
The master articles I use for 2nd tiers are more like 60-100k words (more perhaps, they are over 150 pages long in MS word sometimes) and still grammatically correct.
Trying to do copyscape checks, or other dupe checks, on the article breaks the tool, as it's over a 1mb in size.

Just curious what's the point of going past this, since it's so easy to produce 500%+ unique articles that actually are readable with proper grammar.

Originally Posted by madoctopus

While I agree with the main message of your post the mathematics behind it are incorrect. That's pretty irrelevant but let me explain what I mean. When you spin, you have words or n-grams that repeat themselves within a block. In other words you will have...

Jeez buddy, I was trying to keep it simple to get the point across...

I stated several times that I wasn't going to get into the detail; it was the principle that uniquess% is a useless figure as it doesn't provide any indicator of how unique for how long.

Content could be over 80% unique for only 500 spins, or for 50 million spins. The uniqueness% doesn't portray this.

I was just tying to get people to think about it; not trying to get people ready for a maths or linguistics processing degree !

I know mate. I just wanted to emphasize on that part of computing the uniqueness because that's how the software developers gt it wrong in the first place and now people rely on their uniqueness score.

Originally Posted by jascoken

Jeez buddy, I was trying to keep it simple to get the point across...

I stated several times that I wasn't going to get into the detail; it was the principle that uniquess% is a useless figure as it doesn't provide any indicator of how unique for how long.

Content could be over 80% unique for only 500 spins, or for 50 million spins. The uniqueness% doesn't portray this.

I was just tying to get people to think about it; not trying to get people ready for a maths or linguistics processing degree !

Originally Posted by madoctopus

I know mate. I just wanted to emphasize on that part of computing the uniqueness because that's how the software developers gt it wrong in the first place and now people rely on their uniqueness score.

But it sounds like you're criticising me for the fact that they calculate incorrectly...

I don't think you were now; but it sounded that way even with your reply.

And as I've stated, that wasn't even the purpose of the thread; it was that uniqueness (however calculated) is irrelevant and useless as an SEO figure for mass submission, because it bears no resemblance to the number of unique variations.

Furthermore; you cannot express that as a single number, so there's no way that developers COULD have produced a single meaningful number. It's just a guide... but that's my point; people shouldn't rely on it as much as they do - and I wanted to explain WHY in simple terms.

Got me a membership today and played around with UberCubez, pretty useful tool. First I had a hard time getting into it but after an hour a lightbulb went on and I completely got how to write those constructs and can imagine it will be superfast...

But there is one last thing I don't quite get... We are supposed to spin each sentence again, makes sense... np

But when I take my finished construct, and then add spintax to each sentence and plug it into the cubez spinner, the output is broken...

Just tested it, added spintax only to my first sentence, ran it through the cubez spinner and it broke my spintax, the sentence it selected that contained the spintax was broken apart and parts of the spintax attached to a different sentence in a different paragraph.

So I'm not sure now, isn't this what we are supposed to do with the construct we've generated? But if that's it, why does the cubez spinner break my content then?


EDIT:
ok forgot I asked lol, just found out I somehow added a dash at the top of the article followed by some empty lines, the spinner didn't like that and after I removed it the output was fine

For those that are having difficulty understanding some relatively high level speech here is a shortcut.

You CAN take an existing article that you like from the web and as long as you do enough re-writes then do some clean word level spinning you can still put out content that shows a high uniqueness %, is readable and can be used over and over. My very 1st construct was on a topic I know nothing about, so I pulled an article from the #1 ranked site, rewrote that sucker with 5 sentence variations (so 6 sentences total) then spun at the word level.

I submitted the spintaxed articles to ezine, articlebase and the like and they were accepted no problem.

What I am saying is that if you are having trouble creating your own construct, just grab a fairly long article from somewhere (so you have enough paragraphs) and go to work, if you intend to write 9 other variations of the same sentence there is only a small chance you will have a high duplication % once you factor in the work level spinning and the paragraph substitutions. To make it even nicer use the article splicer in UBERTOOLZ, if you can find 2 or more articles that are very similar in topics then you can splice that sucker together for a brand new article, then take that same "new" article and do rewrites to it. The quality MAY drop down a bit BUT if the articles are similar enough you can do it. I have found that Wikipedia's articles about certain subject are generic enough that they can be woven into other generic articles to create a pretty readable new article.

Hope this helps someone.

So I take it you guys are only using the UberCubez for your 2nd tier sites then?

If so, what are you using (content wise) to create massive numbers of 1st tiers?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Zipper

So I take it you guys are only using the UberCubez for your 2nd tier sites then?

If so, what are you using (content wise) to create massive numbers of 1st tiers?

Thanks.

No. UberCubez are used for first tier content as well... Not sure where you got that from?

They're one of the most straightforward ways of generating gigantic hyper-spun constructs. We use them for building unique sites with.

The bottom line is, any spinning method is only as good as the content you put in. If you use crap and loads of unedited autospintax, you'll end up with crap.

Oh, I thought I read somewhere that Expertpeon was using the UberCubez for 2nd Tiers only.

But if the output quality is good enough to be used for 1st Tiers that would be awesome; I guess then you could create a second construct for your 2nd Tiers (backlinking the first).

If that's the case, I will be signing up. Can anyone else confirm this?

Thanks.

Well the constuct is just a format for writing your super-spun articles. There isn't actually any synonym replacement going on in that module so the quality is completely up to what you put into your article. The construct is just picking random paragraphs and sentences and putting them into spintax. On the surface it sounds a bit ho-hum, but this is definitely the best way I have ever used for creating hugely spun articles. It is so much more straight-forward and I get a lot more uses out of my content.

For tier two/three stuff you can also just scrape a bunch of articles and mix and mash them up into the uber construct and spit out tons of unique spins.

Check out the demo site... I think you just have to see it and try it.

WOW , Thanks for the awesome info dude , been reading your site from sometime now and this is easily one of the most useful threads I ever came across.

Thanks Again