A war on article spinners and SERP data miners

[kgun]

Avoiding Duplicating Content Isn't Enough; Google Looks for Differentiation

Remember article spinners? I really hope you're not still using them.


Spinners are like an automatic thesaurus, changing out certain words just enough to make the article different enough that you hope Google won't catch on.


Another tactic used real people, often underpaid outsourced workers from developing countries, to change the structure of an article and trade out a percentage of words so you could call an article “unique.” Of course, article spinning typically generates garbled, unintelligible garbage. It did work for a while a few years ago, to fool the search engines into thinking a site had more unique content than it actually had. No longer.

Source: Google’s Matt Cutts Talks Infographics, Differentiation & More SEO Topics

Related WPW thread: Copy scape and duplicate content - more confusing than convincing.

What do you think, will search engines ever win the war against contet writing bots and software, article spinning and SERP datamining and similar?

[sonu rey]

What do you think, will search engines ever win the war against contet writing bots and software, article spinning and SERP datamining and similar?

YES, surely they will win, with proper users support, similar to wiki

[kgun]

YES, surely they will win, with proper users support, similar to wiki

So what are Wikis? How many of them are made by people with a professional background in the field? And in addtion, even some of the most used take no responsibility for the content, and it can take years before extreme political propaganda is deleted. Example:

Wikipedia source for right extremism or useful tool? (Use a translation service)

A related WPW thread:

Search engine for Wikipedia or the web?

And search engines will not be able to identify and remove article spinning and SERP mined content. The reason is the same as in chess. When there are (for practical purposes) infinite combinations, it is not possible. If there are infinite combinations for the automated crawlers ane indexing machines that crawl and index 24/7 at electronic speed, how can they identify contet that is put on the internet at the same speed? Last but not least, humans will not be able to identify it either, even if the human brain is better at pattern reckognition. The combinations are still infinite. If I had a relevant database, I could have spun and put more content on the internet in 24 hours (if I had enough unique Ip's) than million of people. The ISP would be to identify me if I operated from the same ISP.

I could have linked to an article that explained why it is impossible, but that is unique content that will not be reproduced here whwe som posts are randomly deleted and others after a PM.

More and more article and automatic generated content will be put on the web, since it is profitalble to fool the search engines and the AdSense Bot. Google shall remember that they suspended my AdSense account without warning. I will not sign an informal slave contract to work free for them. And I will never work for free for any Wiki.

Money speaks New generic TDLs. NORID also cleaning .no domains.

may be a better way to clean the web.

I definitely hope that I am wrong.

Privae copy.

[weegillis]

YES, surely they will win, with proper users support, similar to wiki

I don't see the correlation between Google and any wiki, as one (the former) is proprietary and opaque, and the other is transparent. One is usurping your energy to conform to their screwed up and ever changing guidelines and the other is usurping your placement in the SERP's. How this will ever get sorted out to anyone's benefit (besides Google and WikiPedia) is anyone's guess.

But on the OP, I would go along with any strategy that effectively targets sites filled with hot air. How they will do this with today's flawed algorithms is a mystery, but I'm sure that won't stop the labs from coming up with ever more updates to make everyone's day.

[sumeshthandan]

I saw an article of mattcutt he says that we only like that websites which is liked by users that means it all depends on traffic no matter whether the content is spin or edited.

[SteveGerencser]

I saw an article of mattcutt he says that we only like that websites which is liked by users that means it all depends on traffic no matter whether the content is spin or edited.

Link to this quote?

[C0ldf1re]

... Source: Google’s Matt Cutts Talks Infographics, Differentiation & More SEO Topics

Notable for the quote:

When Enge asked Cutts to clarify Google’s position on the subject of big brands and whether Google rewards their advertisers with better rankings, the answer was an emphatic “No.”

But, as we agreed on another thread, Matt Cutts doesn't know everything, does he?

Regarding article spinning, it does seem feasible to analyze and compare the "content" of 2 articles, rather than just the words used, to see if they are duplicates. So, if you spin an article by just changing words, you end up with the same semantic content. But it is easy to get around that.

Do this test with a throw-away website that cannot, ever, be traced back to you! (Note that you will probably want to employ cheap labor to do the routine part of this work -- it will only cost a few dollars in all!)

Just do a Google search for your desired search term. Take one paragraph each from the top 200 search results. Spin the resulting garbage. Top and tail it with your own original introductory paragraph and conclusion paragraph. Repeat a few dozen times, and link the resulting pages into a "website". Throw a few thousands cheap links at this website.

Bingo! You now have a website that quickly ranks high on serps. Of course, it contains rubbish, so you can't use it to sell anything to humans. Naturally, one of the competitors (whom you have displaced in serps) will quickly moan to Google, and your site will disappear forever from serps.

But the point is proven that you can beat the Google algorithm (at present).