Top 3 Spinner Tool
- Thread starter dennica
- Start date
That free best spinner there is the source code. The source code requires you to go through it and determine just what algorithms are used to generate a paper convincing enough that it can fool some human peer reviewer in addition to Google Scholar.
Once you have the freely given source code....
While I had figured that is what you were after, I had also determined that what is best is not necessarily what is popular. The point that I was making in an off hand way is that what will be the best is generally an amalgamation of what went before.
While I use Spinner Chief, it is not my primary spinning tool. My primary spinning tool is myself and the API is generally Wordpad, Note Pad ++ or Word. After I have done the spinning by hand, I then plug the spintext article into a spinner and check it for uniqueness. After this I run some other tests, and then choose the best articles for additional editing.
Have you looked through the source code? I have not gone completely through the source. In fact, I have only gone through the source enough to determine that the code uses a base of words that come from other articles. Sounds like a spinner, acts like a spinner with a twist and a lot of syllogistic and statistical math.
Old saying: If it walk like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
So as an example, you rewrite the appropriate portions to take your article and dump it to a data file. You then take that data file to generate new articles in the same context area. Is this not the same that you do with a spinner? The difference being that a with a spinner you are generally, but not always, choosing which words to spin (unless you want complete garbage) while SCIGen chooses the structure and spin of an article.
SCIGen was originally conceived of a a method to test the integrity of free research journals compared to paid journals, and was conceived of as a way to generate convincing, although bogus articles, that would pass human review, but also have enough error that close examination would reveal that the article was fraudulent.
I hope that this more clearly explains my position.
