★★ Get Unlimited 100% Unique High Quality Content, Revolutionary Method, $27/month ★★
- Thread starter Juicify
- Start date
- Status
i got it for a trial of 3 days and i must admit its good.
its good completely .something new and very CooL
spun copies are detected by big g but this is not[i guess]
you can publish an original artice on ezine and then spin it using this software and send on hubpages.
hubpages mods will check it using copyscape or big g and they would not find copy and your article will get approved again....
also cool if you planning to use with senuke or amr typo softwares.
its good completely .something new and very CooL
spun copies are detected by big g but this is not[i guess]
you can publish an original artice on ezine and then spin it using this software and send on hubpages.
hubpages mods will check it using copyscape or big g and they would not find copy and your article will get approved again....
also cool if you planning to use with senuke or amr typo softwares.
Wow, never seen anything like this before. I just have to say that this is AMAZING. I had 20 micro niche sites that needed content and guess what. I got the whole content from ezine articles and just rewrote it with this peace of magic.
This piece of work is worth way way more than its $27/month fee.
This piece of work is worth way way more than its $27/month fee.
Wow
I had submitted one article to approx. 1000 article directories and ALL OF THEM ARE APPROVED .
I just checked.
If any1 have 10% OF MIND,He will Use This !
I had submitted one article to approx. 1000 article directories and ALL OF THEM ARE APPROVED .
I just checked.
If any1 have 10% OF MIND,He will Use This !
Glad to hear that you like it
Hey Juicify,
I'd like to try out your 1 day pass so I can see if this will work for my projects. I need to decide whether I want the 3-limit one or unlimited. Username on your site is RevolutionRewriter.
Best,
loush
Sure, I have given you a 1 day trial.
This service looks great, so I joined, but I have a problem and wondering if anyone can help. The articles I submit pass copyscape no problem, but they get rejected at the article sites for things spelled incorrectly. Now, they are not actually spelled wrong, but they must be picking it up in some type of filter. I tried UAW and AR and had problems with both. What service / tools are you using with this?
Thanks.
Thanks.
It is understandable that a spellchecker reacts on this tool. Are you selecting to manipulate all words when you rewrite or are you leaving it unchecked (manipulate only stopwords)?
I personally use it on web 2.0 sites and blogs. What are UAW and AR, I'm not up to date on the abbreviations.
I personally use it on web 2.0 sites and blogs. What are UAW and AR, I'm not up to date on the abbreviations.
UAW - Unique Article Wizard and AR - Article Ranks. I understand as well, but I had seen some comments in this thread about people submitting to article directories and wondering what they are using for submission? I will just switch to it and not worry about the others.
A preliminary review
Having had a one-day free trial, I'll provide a preliminary review. I intend to sign up for the paid service, and I may have a more complete review later on.
First impressions: Juicify responded quickly and gave me the free trial. The site is clean looking and very simple to use (and hosted on a weird-ass domain that had me scratching my head a little, but of course that doesn't matter). Everything looks smooth and professional. A lot of effort clearly went into this.
The process: Paste the article in the field provided, adjust the sliding bar to set the percentage of spinning, and paste your keywords into the appropriate box to make sure they don't get modified by the program. Press the button, and immediately the spun article appears below. Press the button to copy to your clipboard - and you're done.
This all takes less than a minute, and the only thing that takes any time at all is pasting the keywords, but you can do that much faster than I did.
There's also an option to get the spun article in Spintax for further spinning.
On the whole, the attention to detail is impressive.
The result: The generated article looks just like the original article, but is encoded differently.
Using it: Juicify recommends using this on Web 2.0 sites and blogs. You'd be taking a risk to use it on your money sites, because it's pretty black hat, as Juicify himself notes.
I spun some EzineArticles and pasted them on free blog sites. CopyScape found no similar pages, not even the several years old original articles on EzineArticles, meaning that is does not pick up that the spun articles look just like the originals to humans. The implication is that spiders also don't see that they are, for all intents and purposes, straight copies. That, of course, is the entire point about this spinner.
The text editor on some free blog sites had trouble with the formatting, and would post some articles as one long, unbroken line, or in a very narrow column, as well as in the Courier font.
However, this was not consistent, and some articles (I'd say about one in three) would be posted as intended and look real good. WordPress-powered sites seemed to have the least problems, but some spun articles would require more manual work on the text editor to break lines and change the font. I imagine this may have something to do with the encoding, and could probably be changed in the software.
Does it work? My aim here was to make a network of keyword-rich quality sites very quickly and cheaply. So it's necessary that Google indexes the sites and gives no duplicate penalty. I don't know how that would work from a technical point of view, though it almost seems too good to be true (if it does work, it seems to me that the term "revolutionary" is fully deserved).
One vital question is how G sees the articles. Are they perceived as gibberish, will they rank, will they even be indexed? I don't know yet, but I think I'll find out within a week.
Sixteen hours later, none of the blog sites I made last night have yet been indexed. That is as expected - I haven't linked to them, so I'm not worried yet.
For now, I will sign up for the paid service to make more sites. If it works as I hope, the price is pretty darn low for what the end result could be.
Sum-up: It does what it says on the can, and very smoothly too. If it works as I'm hoping, this is a valuable part of any backlink strategy for the blackhat-friendly.
Fun bonus exercise for the reader: If this works, and if you only spin your own articles and not stolen ones from EzineArticles: is this method unethical?
Having had a one-day free trial, I'll provide a preliminary review. I intend to sign up for the paid service, and I may have a more complete review later on.
First impressions: Juicify responded quickly and gave me the free trial. The site is clean looking and very simple to use (and hosted on a weird-ass domain that had me scratching my head a little, but of course that doesn't matter). Everything looks smooth and professional. A lot of effort clearly went into this.
The process: Paste the article in the field provided, adjust the sliding bar to set the percentage of spinning, and paste your keywords into the appropriate box to make sure they don't get modified by the program. Press the button, and immediately the spun article appears below. Press the button to copy to your clipboard - and you're done.
This all takes less than a minute, and the only thing that takes any time at all is pasting the keywords, but you can do that much faster than I did.
There's also an option to get the spun article in Spintax for further spinning.
On the whole, the attention to detail is impressive.
The result: The generated article looks just like the original article, but is encoded differently.
Using it: Juicify recommends using this on Web 2.0 sites and blogs. You'd be taking a risk to use it on your money sites, because it's pretty black hat, as Juicify himself notes.
I spun some EzineArticles and pasted them on free blog sites. CopyScape found no similar pages, not even the several years old original articles on EzineArticles, meaning that is does not pick up that the spun articles look just like the originals to humans. The implication is that spiders also don't see that they are, for all intents and purposes, straight copies. That, of course, is the entire point about this spinner.
The text editor on some free blog sites had trouble with the formatting, and would post some articles as one long, unbroken line, or in a very narrow column, as well as in the Courier font.
However, this was not consistent, and some articles (I'd say about one in three) would be posted as intended and look real good. WordPress-powered sites seemed to have the least problems, but some spun articles would require more manual work on the text editor to break lines and change the font. I imagine this may have something to do with the encoding, and could probably be changed in the software.
Does it work? My aim here was to make a network of keyword-rich quality sites very quickly and cheaply. So it's necessary that Google indexes the sites and gives no duplicate penalty. I don't know how that would work from a technical point of view, though it almost seems too good to be true (if it does work, it seems to me that the term "revolutionary" is fully deserved).
One vital question is how G sees the articles. Are they perceived as gibberish, will they rank, will they even be indexed? I don't know yet, but I think I'll find out within a week.
Sixteen hours later, none of the blog sites I made last night have yet been indexed. That is as expected - I haven't linked to them, so I'm not worried yet.
For now, I will sign up for the paid service to make more sites. If it works as I hope, the price is pretty darn low for what the end result could be.
Sum-up: It does what it says on the can, and very smoothly too. If it works as I'm hoping, this is a valuable part of any backlink strategy for the blackhat-friendly.
Fun bonus exercise for the reader: If this works, and if you only spin your own articles and not stolen ones from EzineArticles: is this method unethical?
got a full membership, going to mess about with this for a month and see...
of course google could catch on to this and easily de-encode and find much easier than traditional spinning - but i say use it on article directories and other such sites... as suggested,
while it lasts it should be awesome - we'll see
i did test my own on site indexed content in copyscape and no match at all - but if i understand how it works correctly i see why.... hope this stays under the radar for a while... and gets indexed with a little help from my other tools, lindex and blasts,
unagi
of course google could catch on to this and easily de-encode and find much easier than traditional spinning - but i say use it on article directories and other such sites... as suggested,
while it lasts it should be awesome - we'll see
i did test my own on site indexed content in copyscape and no match at all - but if i understand how it works correctly i see why.... hope this stays under the radar for a while... and gets indexed with a little help from my other tools, lindex and blasts,
unagi
- Status