Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Oh, that evil spinner! How dare he!

I don't know why this is even here, but I saw the category, saw that it was empty, and decided to post a few words about spinning.

Yes, spinning. The evil of all. The worst crimes against writers since, well scraping. Over the years, spinning has gained a bad rap. And quite frankly, it should have.

Looking through the vastness of the Internet, especially through the early part of this decade, spinning was used to profusely in the web industry. Google had no defense for it, and it worked. People went nuts, and spun their little hearts out. The result was absolutely crappy copy, that made no sense, and no one could read or even decipher it. It was a bad, bad time to be in the content game, especially if you were one of the good guys that cared about what people were reading.

Now, I shoudl tell you  that spinners are still around. People still use them, but their effectiveness has gone way down. But, I fully admit, that I have used spinners. But, unlike all of those other people, a lot of the copy that I did way back when, can still be found on the Internet. Granted, in funky spaces here and there, but still found, and still ranking. How?

First of all, spinning in the old traditional way was never meant to be read. It was meant to be looked at by Google, and then ranked. That's it. But what I did went well beyond.

I did very complex spins, using logical word patterns, and multiple sentencing. In other words, instead of having only a few million variations of a 500 word article, I could have 20 million different versions. That's not an exaggeration. I created an entire site devoted to one product that had the same copy, rewritten and spun to read 20 million times. In the end, I had a 32,000 page site on Google. And when you have that many pages, it's considered an authority site. Those pages ranked over many sites that should have had a better foothold than mine.

First, for every sentence in a written article, I would write five sentences that were different, but basically said the same thing. Then, within each of those articles, I would spin the content inside of those. Sometimes a good spun 600-word article would take at least two days to create and prepare. But the time I spent was well worth it, because I knew that I would have a warchest of content, ready to go.

I won't get into all of the details here about what I used program-wise, because most of them are off the market, but once again since, the section was here, and most of them would not work today, anyway, I figure I'd share.

But the super-spin model is still viable for creating larger sites, and using back links to build up major link juice for certain reasons. That's all I'll say.

Comments

  • edited July 2015
    LOL... Moneyspinners is the category for people to post their ref links, links to their sites, affil links and all that other marketing stuff. Stuff that makes money. Moneyspinners. :)

    But that was very interesting. I still see a lot of spun content on WLE - not the proper, clever, manually spun stuff but the articles where people honestly think the Admin Team consists of a bunch of imbeciles who won't spot the spin, despite the weird words, stupid phrases and so on. Instant rejection.

    It's interesting to see that you consider it viable even with Google's changes to their link ranking. I would have thought it would be difficult to build a link structure that they won't come down on and Google-slap you for.
  • I never really liked the concept of spinning content. It just felt wrong and usually looked weird also. In addition to not having good quality or time to invest in content, spinning is often done at the cheapest price as possible. That makes content an expense, rather than than an asset. 

    Having said that, the idea of "spinning" is done in news media all the time. 
  • What I don't like is when clients will accuse me of spinning, when I have not done so. Some marketers are so on guard for individuals spinning materials they will look for anything to look at an article and say it was a spun article. It is not fair to accuse a writer of doing so, when they did not do so, nor had any intention of doing so.
  • So that is the meaning of spinners - rehashing the idea to write another sentence. So it is like stretching a sentence to make it a paragraph.

    This reminds me when my husband's the office website launched an audition for article writers. He brought home one writeup by an applicant. It contained several paragraphs that covered about half of a word document page. When I read the writeup, all it said was the actress was once popular and now she is trying to make a comeback. No matter how I read the writeup, I got nothing more except that idea about the popularity of the actress. Now I know that it is called spinning.
  • "So that is the meaning of spinners - rehashing the idea to write another sentence. So it is like stretching a sentence to make it a paragraph."

    No, spinning is not rewriting. Spinning is when you prepare a document (ideally by hand, but there are crappy programs that do it) to use one of multiple phrases. For example:

    "We [went|had gone|will go] to the [cinema|market|mall]."

    That sentence has 3 options in each of two positions, so you can make 9 different phrases. You do that all the way through the document (though generally the options are more complex), then the spinner generates random choices at each decision point, creating "unique" content that says the same thing.

    The real problem with spinners is that automation has turned it all to poop. There's rarely any context, so the spinning app mixes up meanings for words all the time. "Polish"... is that the nationality or the act of polishing? "Rate"... is that a salary per hour, a speed, the action of rating something...? Since the app doesn't care, you get some REALLY weird stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.