Why Article Uniqueness% Is Useless for Mass Submission...

[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?

 

[Expertpeon]

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.

 

[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.

 

[jascoken]

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!

 

[jon_xx_x]

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?

 

[acotut]

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?

 

[implayer]

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

 

[joaquin112]

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.

 

[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]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ramsweb]

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?

 

[TheMatrix]

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|effective} 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|affected} 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|affected} {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|extremely} {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|inadequate} {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|specifically} {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?

 

[Expertpeon]

@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.

 

[jascoken]

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 !

 

[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.

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 !

 

[jascoken]

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.

 

[madsem]

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

 

[Getwhatchuwant]

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.

 

[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.