How do you guys go about spinning and submitting your content?

Say you have one article you wrote for your web 2.0.

Would you spin that SAME article and link the spun text to that article or would you spin a different article and spin to that text. Does it matter?

I.e. is it only for bots to read or if it is for human eyes does it only have to be good enough to get accepted rather than having to be largely different from the other content 'down the chain'?

See I had been spinning this afternoon concerned about making different content from my web 2.0's if I am gonna do an AMR blast but I just got to thinking it doesn't really matter does it?

Having said that though, would submission to article directories likely get rejected for submitting several spun articles that were largely the same over the course of a few days- i.e. if you sent them through the same user name to the same directories?

Yeah I often have this worry, but the general vibe I got from asking this question was that it doesn't really matter when submitting the same spun article to article directories. Its really up to the person themselves.

I think I'll just keep testing and see what happens.

I only have another day with the AMR trial version anyhow to wanna put it to use then give it a couple weeks to see what the results are.

Yeah, to be honest, your gonna get a hell of a lot of different answers, the best thing to do is play with it. Here is a 2 great threads where amr was used, I gained the most info about how people use it effectively in these 2 threads.
Hope they help man.

I use a few various methods:
Generally I manually write 1 article, (usually academic journal worthy, if you don't have the education to do this you probably will have issues trying)

I then create 10 replacement sentences, all equivalent to the sentence before using totally different sentence structures etc
For instance:
Decades of research has provided only vacant, easily dismissible evidence on the effects of <keyword>. turns into "The evidence acquired so far through medical research has correlated only loosely with <keyword>" turns into "Though some research has offered results of statistical significance, the data is by no means overwhelming concerning <keyword>'s beneficial effects."
Obv after that you use your thesaurus + spinnerchief (or if you bought bestspinner) to spin the words into REAL EQUIVALENTS!!!!!! DO not use crappy synonyms.

evidence is not synonymous with "testament"

You're effectively writing 10 articles, but you can turn them into 1000, with a 97-98% unique rating, no editing necessary, and will be autoapproved at even the most "unique content" nazi sites (or anywhere where your category fits in).

Obv you cannot buy articles to do this properly (or really to have any legit success with articles in general)

Expertpeon said:

I use a few various methods:
Generally I manually write 1 article, (usually academic journal worthy, if you don't have the education to do this you probably will have issues trying)

I then create 10 replacement sentences, all equivalent to the sentence before using totally different sentence structures etc
For instance:
Decades of research has provided only vacant, easily dismissible evidence on the effects of <keyword>. turns into "The evidence acquired so far through medical research has correlated only loosely with <keyword>" turns into "Though some research has offered results of statistical significance, the data is by no means overwhelming concerning <keyword>'s beneficial effects."
Obv after that you use your thesaurus + spinnerchief (or if you bought bestspinner) to spin the words into REAL EQUIVALENTS!!!!!! DO not use crappy synonyms.

evidence is not synonymous with "testament"

You're effectively writing 10 articles, but you can turn them into 1000, with a 97-98% unique rating, no editing necessary, and will be autoapproved at even the most "unique content" nazi sites (or anywhere where your category fits in).

Obv you cannot buy articles to do this properly (or really to have any legit success with articles in general)

Click to expand...

Well I figured out how to do that in spinner chief today replacing with the brackets and pipes. That does the same as what you're suggesting if I understand you correctly cos with the spintax you are still choosing the words that will make sense.

i tried adspinner but its really confusing.. actually considering breaking down & buying the best spinner

Ranko Jones said:

Well I figured out how to do that in spinner chief today replacing with the brackets and pipes. That does the same as what you're suggesting if I understand you correctly cos with the spintax you are still choosing the words that will make sense.

Click to expand...

Yes just use an outside thesaurus.

Google is constantly working on algorithms to crack down on content spinning. Why not just write unique content or outsource it? Im all for certain black hat methods but at the end of the day-content is king! UNIQUE CONTENT is what drives the net. If everyone just rehashes and spins then we ALL get punished. Not worth it imo

NichePazloe said:

Google is constantly working on algorithms to crack down on content spinning. Why not just write unique content or outsource it? Im all for certain black hat methods but at the end of the day-content is king! UNIQUE CONTENT is what drives the net. If everyone just rehashes and spins then we ALL get punished. Not worth it imo

Click to expand...

How many different ways can you inform people that cholestoral is bad for their heart?

What should be king for SEOers, is spun content that appears unique, even to humans.

I have been writing articles daily . Spinning once in a blue but as for long term gain,writing it yourself is best . I agree with niche on this one. It pays off in the end to have 100% unique content

personally i use The Best Spinner but Spinner Chief will do the job, most important is to manually spin whole sentences and then go back and spin the words inside the spun sentences, if you take your time you can it will come out readable. but being readable is not always my main concern, sometimes i just want to get the backlinks. no matter what i'm doing my goal is always to make it over 50% unique.

then you can throw it into senuke, magic submitter or whatever tool you like to submit them

As long as the article gets submitted it doesn't really matter. It is best to spin the article when submitting, for extra precaution.

Respectfully, I think some of you guys are as bad as the whitehatters in making unfounded claims.

How many who say content is king and you must spin to avoid penalties have actually done controlled tests rather than just going on some 'net rumour and taking it as gospel?

Just sayin'...

Now naturally if you did submit spun stuff and it got rejected then that is evidence enough...but I think alot of people have ONLY ever written articles by hand then say 'you gotta do it this way or else' when they never tried another way. Likewise others say you gotta spin it over 80% unique to get accepted when they never tried any other %. I.e. alot of it seems like 'superstition' . I'm not saying it definitely is one way or another but I am saying I am a good student of science and so base my beliefs on empirical evidence.

That is what I think 'saves you [most] time' in the long run.

Ranko Jones said:

Respectfully, I think some of you guys are as bad as the whitehatters in making unfounded claims.

How many who say content is king and you must spin to avoid penalties have actually done controlled tests rather than just going on some 'net rumour and taking it as gospel?

Just sayin'...

Now naturally if you did submit spun stuff and it got rejected then that is evidence enough...but I think alot of people have ONLY ever written articles by hand then say 'you gotta do it this way or else' when they never tried another way. Likewise others say you gotta spin it over 80% unique to get accepted when they never tried any other %. I.e. alot of it seems like 'superstition' . I'm not saying it definitely is one way or another but I am saying I am a good student of science and so base my beliefs on empirical evidence.

That is what I think 'saves you [most] time' in the long run.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. I knew you would get a lot of different answers.
Unless there is someone who has evidence that spinning 50% against 90% and against unique content gives different results then its hard to get 1 concrete solid answer to which is better, worse, right or wrong.
Unless there is someone who has tried all methods and has results, I think we are stuck with opinions and no proper evidence. :45:

Well I don't think it would be too hard to provide evidence if everyone made a concerted effort to submit their results for review but I doubt that will happen- also I think there are alot of variables which can salt the findings.

I.e. one person in good faith saying X method led to Y backlinks may not have accounted for Z helping them along so it would not be 'controlled'.

At the same time if enough people told of their methods and there were patterns there might be some value in that if patterns emerged.

But like I said I doubt such an earnest undertaking is going to happen cos for most even if they are getting SOME success they will be like 'meh good enough' and continue as normal- worrying about the 'time is money' maxim .

As for myself I am trying out different things and noting what works from what doesn't. For instance I have been deliberately submitting the exact same articles to all 500 directories (100 or so approved each time) just since I don't see why you'd get penalized for that and so am testing that theory.

Also the 'sandboxing' hypothesis I have been blasting one of my sites directly to see what happens. If it turns out to be false then I save myself alot of time having to use buffers like everyone does.

All my sites are new so I don't have much to lose with these tests and alot of time to save if I find some shortcuts to what might be common myths.

I actually had a squidoo lens deindexed so I'm thinking there might be something to the above- so I think I'll stick to blasting web2.0s for practice now rather than the money site- I think that might be more to do though with just blasting non context relevant links to it so I'm about to blast an AMR blast of context relevant to see what happens.

subscribed.
tnx guys, some helpful stuff on here!

OP +Rep given. Thanks.

Expertpeon said:

I use a few various methods:
Generally I manually write 1 article, (usually academic journal worthy, if you don't have the education to do this you probably will have issues trying)

I then create 10 replacement sentences, all equivalent to the sentence before using totally different sentence structures etc
For instance:
Decades of research has provided only vacant, easily dismissible evidence on the effects of <keyword>. turns into "The evidence acquired so far through medical research has correlated only loosely with <keyword>" turns into "Though some research has offered results of statistical significance, the data is by no means overwhelming concerning <keyword>'s beneficial effects."
Obv after that you use your thesaurus + spinnerchief (or if you bought bestspinner) to spin the words into REAL EQUIVALENTS!!!!!! DO not use crappy synonyms.

evidence is not synonymous with "testament"

You're effectively writing 10 articles, but you can turn them into 1000, with a 97-98% unique rating, no editing necessary, and will be autoapproved at even the most "unique content" nazi sites (or anywhere where your category fits in).

Obv you cannot buy articles to do this properly (or really to have any legit success with articles in general)

Click to expand...

That is the way you get it done. The amount of effort seems large ... but truly if you have the written skills Expertpeon mentions you WILL see results like no other. You get out of it what you put into it.