I think 167 is descent price..the amount of content it generates can return your investment within months..I also have ACW..IT has its own place in my backlinks strategy..
I personally didn't like WAC in the least bit. Here are my results:
- Very, very buggy. I'd say a good majority of the needed features didn't work. I would list them all, but unfortunately I don't have the time nor the motivation to go though them all. Let's just say that many of the needed features (besides the core ones, like scraping and building) that would have put this application on a pedestal................didn't work. Very annoying.
- Pulled irrelevant content >> I didn't have the ability to filter properly on the sentences being pulled, as it only allows you to delete according to number of paragraphs/words or if the pulled sentences contained your keyword or not (95% of them didn't). I tried to use the "Relevancy/Unwanted" word filter, but they simply don't work, which left me to scan and read every sentence downloaded. Can we say TIME CONSUMING!
- Author Builder/Title Builder don't work very well. Your better off creating your own. This feature is a complete joke.
- All built articles had no "word wrap". Your constantly scrolling horizontally to read the articles that WAC built for you.
- Building an article at "sentence level" is completely unreadable! Your better off copying an article somewhere and having TBS do a quick spin for you. You'd get better results. This has a lot to do with the mentioned points above. However, utilizing the same "downloaded sentences" from my spins and then switching over to paragraph spins actually resulted in 3-5 duplicate paragraphs per spin. Glitchy, glitchy, glitchy.....
- None of the filters work (Relevancy, Unwanted filters) so you can't really clean your articles. This would have helped greatly with the point above.
- Using the research module just left the application to hang. The status bar reaches 100%, but nothing happens.
Anyways.....this review has gotten a bit more lengthy than I anticipated. Believe me, I could go on further with the bugs I easily uncovered, but it wouldn't help out other "non-users" by going into detail, as you wouldn't understand what I'm conveying. WAC is choked full of great "potential" features, but unfortunately, most don't work. I felt like I had purchased the beta version of this software. I requested my money back (36 hours ago) and haven't heard back. Still too early to tell though, so in the meantime, I'm going to give ACW a try and hope for the best.
I'll leave my honest review for ACW as well, but I doubt they could do any worse, plus "CollyWobbles" seems to be extremely active on this forum and many other related forums. From what I read, his support is top notch!
Hi grafx77, I wrote ACW for myself initially so it's in my interest that it works well For example, fixed a small bug related to the GSA tag %url% today that was just reported by a user overnight. I haven't used the other tools so welcome any suggestions you may have.
Thank you collywobbles, I'm going to make the purchase today. I feel very comfortable with the fact that your open to suggestions and are on top of any bugs that may be reported. It's support like that, which always makes or breaks an application.............hence why GSA SER is sooo well received.
Just want to give my short review about Kontent Maschine & ACW.
I tried Kontent Maschine. The features are nice and complete but the sentences between the first paragraph and the others don't match. For example, my keyword was "christmas gifts ideas". Some paragraphs told about Christmas, but one paragraph about landing page (????) or about something happened in China (lol) or anything else.
As I tried ACW, I was happy, because there was no problem with the relationship between paragraphs. The features are not so complete as Kontent Maschine, but for me the quality of writing result is the most important. There is opening paragraph, body and closing paragraph. It is readable as well
Releasing the lifetime license is not because we want to compete with anybody. We know what we've put in KM.
@kelinemaus - KM produces 230+ paragraphs. Sometimes it happens that 1 or 2 are not 100% on target when you are building content for such a specific keyword. My suggestion is to use a broader term for your first keyword and a more specific one for your second one like first keyword "christmas gifts" and second keyword "christmas gifts ideas".
FYI, these days we are releasing a new update which will allow you to import super-spun articles and build campaigns with them.
collywobbles, I'm just wondering whether ACW can input links (especially the contextual ones) the same way as Kontent Machine? Or do you have plans to do something similar?
Can you explain more? Currently you can add a list of links or simply list the anchor text/link. ACW will then embed these randomly in the article - although it tries to replace matching anchor text first. You can also just use the special GSA tokens %anchor_text% and %url% and then select the number of times you want them to appear (the LINKs number).
Thanks. The way KM works is that it will create articles that all have your keyword in it. Say for example your keyword is "western food". So in every variation there will be this keyword. And you can put in replacement keywords that come with URLs. So say for example one unspun version is read:
"Great western food can be found in the south of New York City"
But because you put in say "Korean food" (and you can add more too) as your keyword replacement and http://koreanfood.com as the URL, the actual version would instead be:
"Great <a href="http://koreanfood.com">Korean food</a> can be found in the south of New York City"
Rather than just inserting a keyword in any place in the article (this is also an option in KM), the new Keyword replaces the original keyword in the original keyword's place - it's a contextual link, not a randomly placed link. That's the difference.
Also, I have the latest version of ACW and I tried to do a spin and yet twice in a row it hanged without completing the article generation. Not sure what's wrong.
Okay gotcha, so replace the phrase "western food" with a anchored link to "korean food". I will add that to the list, nice suggestion.
For ACW, please check that your proxies are working, and if it's not that then check the acwlog.txt file that is in the installation folder. My BuyProxies changed this week and I made the mistake of not updating them in ACW this morning
I'm not sure if the exact MAIN keyword is in every spun version of the ACW generated article? (I haven't been able to use my ACW lately and forgot how it works). But if I'm not wrong, it isn't right?
The thing is that in KM, every spun version will have the MAIN keyword you input (unless it's not able to do so, but most keywords that it can get content for, it's meant to work in this way). So the above can only happen if you have that exact MAIN keyword in every article. Then there's the ability to fill in various keywords and various URL and the for each unspun article, it will replace the MAIN keyword with one of the variations you put in as anchor text with the URL as the link.
Is this possible for ACW?
Also, any plans to do templates for Ultimate Demon and Magic Submitter?
Yes, every word you use in the search box has to appear in the articles - but note that we also allow spintax, exact phrases and negated words so it's not as simple as you think!
eg "RC {planes|helicopters}" -wood
If someone can send me the template format I will add them but we are also planning on adding a custom template, I would prefer to see examples of the other formats though please
Purchased ACW a week or two ago. I was pleasantly surprised at how simple, yet powerful the software is. It didn't allow for sentence/paragraph selection, which is what WAC/KM allow you to do. This worried me until I actually ran the application on a few unique niche keywords. The output articles were very well chosen (relevant) and each paragraph, for the most part, seemed to match from one to the other. I like how the software is layed out, which doesn't allow for any confusion of basic users, but if you delve further into the software, you will uncover many advanced features such as link embedding, image/video pulls, spinning of articles on sentence level, paragraph rearrangements, etc.
I would recommend ACW to anyone who is looking for an "article mash up" type of application. This along with article spinners (TBS, Spinnerchief, etc) would make an amazing combo.
On the flipside, I am warning all those thinking of purchasing WAC (Wicked Article Creator). The software is extremely "buggy" and over half of it doesn't even work properly. It's like using a beta version. I also received no correspondence to any of my inquiries including a refund of the software after trying to use it for 2 days. I had to file a chargeback with my CC company in order to get my money back, which was received. I will never purchase any software related to the so called "James & Vicky" (if that's their real names. No last name found).
None of the above mentioned are spinners. Don't mistake the two, very different applications. ACW will spin different sentences for you, but no spinning on word level. WAC would try to spin on word level for you (automatically) but the replacement words were horrible. It's best to use spinners in conjunction with these types of applications. The API allows you to do so.
Thanks for the great feedback @grafx77! One of my goals was to try and keep things simple, yet give the options that most people wanted if they were advanced users.
@sootedninjas sentence spinning is built in for free, and/or you can use word spinning with TBS/SpinnerChief. Personally I prefer just to use sentence spinning as then you don't get weird word meanings in sentences.
ACW always does sentence spinning internally - we scrape relevant articles, mix up the sentences and choose random ones to output. It is ESSENTIAL for uniqueness.
The tickbox for sentence spinning just means that instead of outputting say 10 articles we output 1 sentence spun article.
I agree that the latest version of WAC is very very buggy. wacadmin must fix these problems FAST if he wants to keep up with the competition and don't loose his customers respect. He must test the software before he release a new version to avoid such problems.
Lots of bugs right now and content is full of weird question marks ???? !! ...this makes the software like a piece of useless junk right now!.
"I am warning all those thinking of purchasing WAC (Wicked Article Creator).The software is extremely "buggy" and over half of it doesn't even work properly. It's like using a beta version. I also received no correspondence to any of my inquiries including a refund of the software after trying to use it for 2 days. I had to file a chargeback with my CC company in order to get my money back, which was received. I will never purchase any software related to the so called "James & Vicky" (if that's their real names. No last name found)."
I had also the same experience. James & Vicky are fake names. Actually his name is "Amit Upadhyay", since I wrote to him many times regarding bugs and refund. I had to ask many times for refund since there was no response or too long response from him / regnow. One day he replied my refund request with this following unpolite email:
"Now stop complaining and solve this with regnow as to why your money is with them. Next stupid email you sent my way will be hit spam."
Don't buy WAC or other software from those names mentioned above. Or you will get the same experience.
@rodol ACW is well recommended in this thread and other forums and comes with a 30 day no quibble money back guarantee. Use the code GSA47 to get a special discount
I tried WAC a while back and it was buggy. Never went back to it.
I've been playing with KM and ACW and both are good... especially ACW with a one time payment in its favor and also its content is more readable (never mind its still gibberish as all the sentences don't gel together).
Strictly the content from both is for lower tiers only. Wish they also scraped comments for blogs, images, guestbooks and content for the about me sections.
Your never going to get unique automated content for your 1st Tier/Money Sites. It's just not possible at this point. Only human authors have this capability. With programs like ChimpRewriter however, you can come pretty damn close, but obviously need some human interaction.
Comments
- Very, very buggy. I'd say a good majority of the needed features didn't work. I would list them all, but unfortunately I don't have the time nor the motivation to go though them all. Let's just say that many of the needed features (besides the core ones, like scraping and building) that would have put this application on a pedestal................didn't work. Very annoying.
- Pulled irrelevant content >> I didn't have the ability to filter properly on the sentences being pulled, as it only allows you to delete according to number of paragraphs/words or if the pulled sentences contained your keyword or not (95% of them didn't). I tried to use the "Relevancy/Unwanted" word filter, but they simply don't work, which left me to scan and read every sentence downloaded. Can we say TIME CONSUMING!
- Author Builder/Title Builder don't work very well. Your better off creating your own. This feature is a complete joke.
- All built articles had no "word wrap". Your constantly scrolling horizontally to read the articles that WAC built for you.
- Building an article at "sentence level" is completely unreadable! Your better off copying an article somewhere and having TBS do a quick spin for you. You'd get better results. This has a lot to do with the mentioned points above.
However, utilizing the same "downloaded sentences" from my spins and then switching over to paragraph spins actually resulted in 3-5 duplicate paragraphs per spin. Glitchy, glitchy, glitchy.....
- None of the filters work (Relevancy, Unwanted filters) so you can't really clean your articles. This would have helped greatly with the point above.
- Using the research module just left the application to hang. The status bar reaches 100%, but nothing happens.
Anyways.....this review has gotten a bit more lengthy than I anticipated. Believe me, I could go on further with the bugs I easily uncovered, but it wouldn't help out other "non-users" by going into detail, as you wouldn't understand what I'm conveying.
WAC is choked full of great "potential" features, but unfortunately, most don't work. I felt like I had purchased the beta version of this software. I requested my money back (36 hours ago) and haven't heard back. Still too early to tell though, so in the meantime, I'm going to give ACW a try and hope for the best.
I'll leave my honest review for ACW as well, but I doubt they could do any worse, plus "CollyWobbles" seems to be extremely active on this forum and many other related forums. From what I read, his support is top notch!
"Great western food can be found in the south of New York City"
But because you put in say "Korean food" (and you can add more too) as your keyword replacement and http://koreanfood.com as the URL, the actual version would instead be:
"Great <a href="http://koreanfood.com">Korean food</a> can be found in the south of New York City"
Rather than just inserting a keyword in any place in the article (this is also an option in KM), the new Keyword replaces the original keyword in the original keyword's place - it's a contextual link, not a randomly placed link. That's the difference.
Also, I have the latest version of ACW and I tried to do a spin and yet twice in a row it hanged without completing the article generation. Not sure what's wrong.
The thing is that in KM, every spun version will have the MAIN keyword you input (unless it's not able to do so, but most keywords that it can get content for, it's meant to work in this way). So the above can only happen if you have that exact MAIN keyword in every article. Then there's the ability to fill in various keywords and various URL and the for each unspun article, it will replace the MAIN keyword with one of the variations you put in as anchor text with the URL as the link.
Is this possible for ACW?
Also, any plans to do templates for Ultimate Demon and Magic Submitter?
I would recommend ACW to anyone who is looking for an "article mash up" type of application. This along with article spinners (TBS, Spinnerchief, etc) would make an amazing combo.
On the flipside, I am warning all those thinking of purchasing WAC (Wicked Article Creator). The software is extremely "buggy" and over half of it doesn't even work properly. It's like using a beta version. I also received no correspondence to any of my inquiries including a refund of the software after trying to use it for 2 days. I had to file a chargeback with my CC company in order to get my money back, which was received. I will never purchase any software related to the so called "James & Vicky" (if that's their real names. No last name found).
I agree that the latest version of WAC is very very buggy. wacadmin must fix these problems FAST if he wants to keep up with the competition and don't loose his customers respect. He must test the software before he release a new version to avoid such problems.
Lots of bugs right now and content is full of weird question marks ???? !! ...this makes the software like a piece of useless junk right now!.
I agree with you 100% for your statement:
"I am warning all those thinking of purchasing WAC (Wicked Article Creator).The software is extremely "buggy" and over half of it doesn't even work properly. It's like using a beta version. I also received no correspondence to any of my inquiries including a refund of the software after trying to use it for 2 days. I had to file a chargeback with my CC company in order to get my money back, which was received. I will never purchase any software related to the so called "James & Vicky" (if that's their real names. No last name found)."
I had also the same experience. James & Vicky are fake names. Actually his name is "Amit Upadhyay", since I wrote to him many times regarding bugs and refund. I had to ask many times for refund since there was no response or too long response from him / regnow. One day he replied my refund request with this following unpolite email:
"Now stop complaining and solve this with regnow as to why your money is with them. Next stupid email you sent my way will be hit spam."
I've been playing with KM and ACW and both are good... especially ACW with a
one time payment in its favor and also its content is more readable
(never mind its still gibberish as all the sentences don't gel
together).
Strictly the content from both is for lower tiers only. Wish they also scraped comments for blogs, images, guestbooks and content for the about me sections.
I've also been testing http://seocontentmachine.com/ and its pretty good too.
Again strictly no content for the money site or tier 1s from any of them... good only for the lower tiers.