How unique is unique ENOUGH

tsaimllc

I am actually directing this question at @ron and similar who seem to be the experts, now I know the answer here will prob be "100%" haha... But for the sites that do manually check and I want them to stick, they need to be mostly readable. I think I read anything above 75%, but I would think more.

Mine are coming up around 88% unique. I question if that is still enough. I think the thing a lot of people forget to think about is there are 2 factors, not only what % on that one site it is unique, but how many actual results show up as well! If you are 90% unique but there are 200 other websites that copyscape picks up on...

So What number there is good too, I am pulling up  25 other results. What is a good number to keep that under? So that humans will still think its a unique article and not the same as those others.

Cheers mates

ron

You need two different approaches. There is no content software that will give you unique AND readable spin. Again, if you need readable content for human moderation, then it has to be human spun. No software can do what you suggest.

However, you can get human spun/very unique/totally readable spun articles with Article Builder and The Leading Articles. Plus, there are people on the SEO forums that you can hire for around $15 - $30 for a custom topic well-spun article.

If you take a seed article, and spin it using a spinner tool like Chimp Rewriter or TBS, you can approach 100%, but you will never get there because you can't spin and replace standard words like "the". However, when you take it to the next step - sentence spinning - you can reach uniqueness levels of 200% or 300% because you are layering on replacement sentences for each sentence in the article.

So human-spun, sentence-spun, articles are the absolute best way to go for websites that moderate. And because the uniqueness is so high, you can use that article for months and months and months with no problem.

By no means am I an expert on spinning. But if you are over 70% or thereabouts, that is pretty darn good.

Don't bother with copyscape. I wasted a lot of time with that crap. That damn thing shows results if two words appear together in more than one article. It means nothing. For godssake, newspapers reprint articles all the time. People take articles and just add a few comments (curation), and make a ton of money doing it. You need to ignore this petty crap. You will drive yourself insane, and then me!

tsaimllc

Thanks ron. Yes I actually was originally getting a new article, then hand spinning it (paying osmeone) and then even posting them manually to web2.0s. For Tier 1. then GSA would blast to those.
But I didnt think 10 web properties was enough to get a hard competition site ranked, so I started using GSA to money site.
Hmm

JamPackedSpam

@ron I have seen superb results from making my articles 71% unique. I think 71% is the magic number. Get out of here with that 70% noise. /troll

gooner

Have of you guys ever tried those tools that encode articles to pass copyscape?

Theoretically, if we are talking about human moderated they will be checking using a tool like copyscape or maybe just pasting a paragraph or two into a search engine. In that case, encoded content would work, no?

Does SER even 'take' content that's encoded?

tsaimllc

crap I forgot that article builder has that feature!

gooner

There's a few cheap standalone tools too, for non-article builder users. No idea if they work with SER or if the software will re-encode the text? Might be worth a try though, spinning content sounds like a massive headache to me.

ron

@tsaimllc - I use Rankwyz and have a small/medium sized (200) blog network. I have it set to use syndicated spun content, and if anybody should be getting a high deletion rate from moderators, it is me. But I rarely get anything deleted (I haven't even had a wordpress property deleted in 4 months).

I would use the spun crap everywhere, then see where the accounts get deleted. Take that list and only use the good stuff on those properties. But to go through all these gyrations before you even prove to yourself that spun crap works...well, that's a lot of work based on your theory.

@JamPackedSpam - Your name is very truthful. I know you have my back on all of this. We need to work on @gooner and @2Take2 - I can see they are ethically torn. They want to be bad, but they only settle for a little bad. Please work on that for me. They are almost ready for the induction ceremony.

tsaimllc

Honestly though, after I just checked that feature @gooner I am not sure it will work against humans. Because although it will work for automation and I just tested it, 100% copyscape passed, when the actual article is posted it is shown as normal, so a human will copy/paste those words into copyscape and it wont pass. If it will show up here, this is what it shows:


Easy Tips To Quickly Improve Your Skin

The quality of your skin " .....
where the word "skin" is coded as ski "& # 110" which is code for n. but it will show as "skin" when it is actually published.

gooner

@tsaimllc - I have another tool. Let me test it and get back to you with results.

JamPackedSpam

Well @ron I look at this very simply. We can theorize that if the content gets indexed when it's originally crawled, it's perfectly unique enough and you're good to go. Google is not going to waste resources coming back later to perform more content analysis (unless they roll out an additional Panda offline filter) to check the readability/uniqueness of content. If it will index, you're in the clear. End of story. That can be applied ANYWHERE. Money sites, parasites, etc.

gooner

@tsaimllc - see here: http://sdh1004.wooriweb.co.kr/xe/?document_srl=315468&mid=photo&sort_index=regdate&order_type=desc&comment_srl=136

Take a paragraph of text (not the title i didn't encode that) and paste into a search engine...

Copyscape says: No results found for 포토겔러리 - Search Engine Optimization Tips That Can Work For You! (1,840 words)

@ron - blackhat enough now? lol

2Take2

Lol @ron - I'm trying, I really am, but I'm afraid that it's just not in my nature! )

@tsaimllc - R.E uniqueness, from my experience anything above 60 - 65% and you're normally good.

ron

@JamPackedSpam - I like your point. Very logical.

I really don't care how many PhD's Google hires from India and Japan. Cracking the English language to detect quality content is a very long way off. I am not worried at all. They can file patents until they are blue in the face. Google isn't the only game in town that could use that technology. If big advances were made, it would already be public knowledge. (One of the first places that would use it are high school and college campuses for writing term papers, lol.)

tsaimllc

@gooner I dont think that is the same thing I am talking about though. Your words in itself are unique, so copyscape says it is unique. But I am going to try to take one of the encoded articles, take the actual words it spits out, then search copyscape for that. I can get articles that are 100% unique with wordAI but testing the article builder uniqueness

ron

@gooner A+ is your grade. That's really edgy stuff. Back when I first started ('98), webmasters were using this approach in the html of their websites to stop people from ripping their content.

gooner

@tsaimllc - So if you copy the text from that article and paste it into a browser and nothing shows up, then it's unique right? Or maybe i am missing the point.

The only issue i can see with content like that is if it will index or not, we'll see.

JamPackedSpam

Only one way to know, test! It's a very simple test.

JamPackedSpam

Consider this same methodology for thickening up your thin sites too

tsaimllc

@gooner what I am referring to for my content and the copyscape issue, is this:

I can take an article from article builder, then put it into wordai, and make it 100% unique. But I am curious if I skip that, and just use article builders "encode to pass copyscape" feature, where it spits out the code I posted above, I need to put it on an actual site and see if it shows up unique for me. I dont think it will. This is what I am referring to. yes, yours is unique!

gooner

@jampackedspam - I've tried to index it a couple of ways so we'll see what happens. Lot's of potential if it indexes, especially as you can choose words that you don't want encoded - Some SEO value there for sure.

@tsaimllc - I'll test Article Builder's encode feature the same way and let you know.

2Take2

@gooner - nice, definitely some mileage there if it works!

tsaimllc

Also, what was it that you did that ron said you did something so wonderful?

ron

I use article builder articles straight up with no spin or encoding. Never had a problem.

gooner

@tsaimllc - Yea article builder encoding doesn't work.
@2take2 - Yea lots of uses, but i don't think it will index.
@ron - Me too, but i was thinking of people who can't/don't use article builder mainly.

tsaimllc

ha, nice find. sucks that it is useless.

tsaimllc

@ron so you just take AB, leave all options unchecked, and plop that on a tier 1?

ron

Exactly. That's the beauty of it. The only issue is whether they have a niche that is decently close to yours.

That's why I also threw Leading Articles in there because they have more diversity of topics and niches. It's not laid out like a table of contents with the niches listed (like AB). Instead, you throw in a keyword search, and articles either appear or they don't. They keep writing new ones, and they have like a 200 person limit on who uses it. It's $12 per article with bundle discounts. Either product is for the win if you need good content.

tsaimllc

I am curious, because I just only now checked my tier 1 links, and I checked that content and it def passes copyscape, but only like 55/250 are indexed . I thought the logic here (or there are more factors) if its unique, it will index.

ron

Being unique doesn't solve the problem. I do know that I have seen sites with hand written articles on the actual moneysite that were not indexed. So we are not even talking about tiers, we are talking about the main site. So content quality is not the issue.

I think it boils down to: if Google thinks your page is unimportant, it will not index. And the only way to show importance is to aim links at it. And if none of those links are any good, then it won't index. That's my best educated guess. 

Sven

Maybe Im too stupid here but What makes @gooner's article so unique here? If I have a look at the article, I see no encoding but plain text. I don't know where I went wrong.

With encoding I thought you mean replacing certain chars with special chars in html language like a

"Hello World" with

Hеl&X6C;o Worl&X64;

(sorry, not displayed correctly on forum but I hope you get what I understood about encoding).