Hi there! SpinnerChief is the best article rewriter tool, because it can not only generate hundreds of new articles in minutes, but also it can rewrite articles to a very high level of human readability and uniqueness. By using the best Natural Language Analysis and Artificial Intelligence techniques, it can understand your articles in the same way as Google does and create content that is close to human quality.
While these recommendations give you some general guidelines as to what settings you want to use in these more popular situations, don’t be afraid to customize according to your needs. For instance, if your Tier 1 will build only just a few links, you can set the 1st input to “Very Readable” or even “Extremely Readable” as WordAI will still produce unique content even if only a few versions.
There is a completely new feature - Team Version, SpinnerChief 5 is the only article spinner that has a team version now, which is especially designed for team using, create/manage/use team thesaurus with team members together, and multi-users can use the license on different computer with themselves member accounts. Manager can manage team members easily.
Cost – WordAi Turing at the time of this writing is a monthly charge of $49.95, while SpinnerChief III Ultimate is a one time purchase of $177 or $67 a year. But it’s not entire black and white to add insult to injury WordAi has a usage cap on the how many word you can spin per billing cycle. Here is an excerpt form their page “250,000 words for the “Turing Spinner” for a billing cycle you will be charged overage fees.”. So if you go over that amount WordAi will bill you extra. Spinner Chief Ultimate does not have any usage limitations when using the desktop client. Hands down SpinnerChief III Ultimate won this. 

Rewriting is far more complicated than many would like it to be. Do you struggle with your rewriting skills and wish to excel at paraphrasing? More than a desire it’s a necessity to most people. It’s an essential skill that many people need to get through their schools, colleges, universities, and jobs, now and then. Many people have to do it quite often which makes it a dull and a difficult task to finish. Moreover, searching for the suitable synonyms or phrases and then rearranging all the sentences is not always a fascinating job. In a situation like that one can’t help but wonder what if there’s a paraphrasing tool that could do all the rewriting for them in the blink of an eye. Fortunately, it is no longer just a dream. Article rewriter, article spinner, paraphrasing tool or whatever you may call it; it is now a reality. An instant article spinner or an instant paraphrasing tool, as the name suggests, can paraphrase your article promptly.
Select the best quality text/content from online, check it, is it suited with your context? Proper selection is too much important for delivering better new one. Get the content from there! And place it on the editor of SEO WAGON Article rewriter tool. Hey, click on Next and see the effects, the engine will read it and gives you options to rewrite as per your choice, choose appropriate synonyms, or you write your own word. There are thousands of synonyms of each word in our dictionary, let’s go for the quickest way of generating article.
As you can see, WordAI is a lot more loose with the meaning of the text and uses synonyms wherever it can in order to produce the most unique content possible – this one is calculated at 98% uniqueness. Again, the purpose of such content should be for the lower tiers where you would need a higher quantity of links with not that high quality content.
Very Readable Content – for this one they recommend setting the 1st input to “Very Readable” and allowing both sentence rewriting and paragraph editing (2nd and 3rd input), but disallowing automatic paragraph spinning (the 4th input). Keep in mind that this type of spinning will generate much less unique versions of your content as less synonyms will be used for the words.
That’s really weird. I have tested WordAI and Spin Rewriter with Copyscape and the results were always 80%+ uniquness, even 90%+. I don’t know how u spun the content to achieve such low results, but this is definitely way too bad. As for the block spinning, I have to be honest, this is the first time I’m hearing of it and I will have to check it out when I have a bit of time, but generally, yes, in the best case scenario, you would manually touch your Tier 1 content to make it 100% human readable and as unique as possible. For lower tiers, you can do pretty much anything, but again, the better quality of content, the better results you will have. That’s in my opinion and experience.
Subscription — Disclaimer: We offer a monthly and a yearly subscription through PayPal. To sign up for full access to Spin Rewriter, you are taken to PayPal where you sign up for your type of subscription. You can cancel your subscription at any time directly from your PayPal account — we even provide helpful instructions on our F.A.Q. page. When you cancel your subscription, we will never charge you any money again. That's our promise.
!function(n,t){function r(e,n){return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,n)}function i(e){return void 0===e}if(n){var o={},s=n.TraceKit,a=[].slice,l="?";o.noConflict=function(){return n.TraceKit=s,o},o.wrap=function(e){function n(){try{return e.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw o.report(e),e}}return n},o.report=function(){function e(e){l(),h.push(e)}function t(e){for(var n=h.length-1;n>=0;--n)h[n]===e&&h.splice(n,1)}function i(e,n){var t=null;if(!n||o.collectWindowErrors){for(var i in h)if(r(h,i))try{h[i].apply(null,[e].concat(a.call(arguments,2)))}catch(e){t=e}if(t)throw t}}function s(e,n,t,r,s){var a=null;if(w)o.computeStackTrace.augmentStackTraceWithInitialElement(w,n,t,e),u();else if(s)a=o.computeStackTrace(s),i(a,!0);else{var l={url:n,line:t,column:r};l.func=o.computeStackTrace.guessFunctionName(l.url,l.line),l.context=o.computeStackTrace.gatherContext(l.url,l.line),a={mode:"onerror",message:e,stack:[l]},i(a,!0)}return!!f&&f.apply(this,arguments)}function l(){!0!==d&&(f=n.onerror,n.onerror=s,d=!0)}function u(){var e=w,n=p;p=null,w=null,m=null,i.apply(null,[e,!1].concat(n))}function c(e){if(w){if(m===e)return;u()}var t=o.computeStackTrace(e);throw w=t,m=e,p=a.call(arguments,1),n.setTimeout(function(){m===e&&u()},t.incomplete?2e3:0),e}var f,d,h=[],p=null,m=null,w=null;return c.subscribe=e,c.unsubscribe=t,c}(),o.computeStackTrace=function(){function e(e){if(!o.remoteFetching)return"";try{var t=function(){try{return new n.XMLHttpRequest}catch(e){return new n.ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP")}},r=t();return r.open("GET",e,!1),r.send(""),r.responseText}catch(e){return""}}function t(t){if("string"!=typeof t)return[];if(!r(j,t)){var i="",o="";try{o=n.document.domain}catch(e){}var s=/(.*)\:\/\/([^:\/]+)([:\d]*)\/{0,1}([\s\S]*)/.exec(t);s&&s[2]===o&&(i=e(t)),j[t]=i?i.split("\n"):[]}return j[t]}function s(e,n){var r,o=/function ([^(]*)\(([^)]*)\)/,s=/['"]?([0-9A-Za-z$_]+)['"]?\s*[:=]\s*(function|eval|new Function)/,a="",u=10,c=t(e);if(!c.length)return l;for(var f=0;f0?s:null}function u(e){return e.replace(/[\-\[\]{}()*+?.,\\\^$|#]/g,"\\$&")}function c(e){return u(e).replace("<","(?:<|<)").replace(">","(?:>|>)").replace("&","(?:&|&)").replace('"','(?:"|")').replace(/\s+/g,"\\s+")}function f(e,n){for(var r,i,o=0,s=n.length;or&&(i=s.exec(o[r]))?i.index:null}function h(e){if(!i(n&&n.document)){for(var t,r,o,s,a=[n.location.href],l=n.document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=""+e,h=/^function(?:\s+([\w$]+))?\s*\(([\w\s,]*)\)\s*\{\s*(\S[\s\S]*\S)\s*\}\s*$/,p=/^function on([\w$]+)\s*\(event\)\s*\{\s*(\S[\s\S]*\S)\s*\}\s*$/,m=0;m]+)>|([^\)]+))\((.*)\))? in (.*):\s*$/i,o=n.split("\n"),l=[],u=0;u=0&&(g.line=v+x.substring(0,j).split("\n").length)}}}else if(o=d.exec(i[y])){var _=n.location.href.replace(/#.*$/,""),T=new RegExp(c(i[y+1])),E=f(T,[_]);g={url:_,func:"",args:[],line:E?E.line:o[1],column:null}}if(g){g.func||(g.func=s(g.url,g.line));var k=a(g.url,g.line),A=k?k[Math.floor(k.length/2)]:null;k&&A.replace(/^\s*/,"")===i[y+1].replace(/^\s*/,"")?g.context=k:g.context=[i[y+1]],h.push(g)}}return h.length?{mode:"multiline",name:e.name,message:i[0],stack:h}:null}function y(e,n,t,r){var i={url:n,line:t};if(i.url&&i.line){e.incomplete=!1,i.func||(i.func=s(i.url,i.line)),i.context||(i.context=a(i.url,i.line));var o=/ '([^']+)' /.exec(r);if(o&&(i.column=d(o[1],i.url,i.line)),e.stack.length>0&&e.stack[0].url===i.url){if(e.stack[0].line===i.line)return!1;if(!e.stack[0].line&&e.stack[0].func===i.func)return e.stack[0].line=i.line,e.stack[0].context=i.context,!1}return e.stack.unshift(i),e.partial=!0,!0}return e.incomplete=!0,!1}function g(e,n){for(var t,r,i,a=/function\s+([_$a-zA-Z\xA0-\uFFFF][_$a-zA-Z0-9\xA0-\uFFFF]*)?\s*\(/i,u=[],c={},f=!1,p=g.caller;p&&!f;p=p.caller)if(p!==v&&p!==o.report){if(r={url:null,func:l,args:[],line:null,column:null},p.name?r.func=p.name:(t=a.exec(p.toString()))&&(r.func=t[1]),"undefined"==typeof r.func)try{r.func=t.input.substring(0,t.input.indexOf("{"))}catch(e){}if(i=h(p)){r.url=i.url,r.line=i.line,r.func===l&&(r.func=s(r.url,r.line));var m=/ '([^']+)' /.exec(e.message||e.description);m&&(r.column=d(m[1],i.url,i.line))}c[""+p]?f=!0:c[""+p]=!0,u.push(r)}n&&u.splice(0,n);var w={mode:"callers",name:e.name,message:e.message,stack:u};return y(w,e.sourceURL||e.fileName,e.line||e.lineNumber,e.message||e.description),w}function v(e,n){var t=null;n=null==n?0:+n;try{if(t=m(e))return t}catch(e){if(x)throw e}try{if(t=p(e))return t}catch(e){if(x)throw e}try{if(t=w(e))return t}catch(e){if(x)throw e}try{if(t=g(e,n+1))return t}catch(e){if(x)throw e}return{mode:"failed"}}function b(e){e=1+(null==e?0:+e);try{throw new Error}catch(n){return v(n,e+1)}}var x=!1,j={};return v.augmentStackTraceWithInitialElement=y,v.guessFunctionName=s,v.gatherContext=a,v.ofCaller=b,v.getSource=t,v}(),o.extendToAsynchronousCallbacks=function(){var e=function(e){var t=n[e];n[e]=function(){var e=a.call(arguments),n=e[0];return"function"==typeof n&&(e[0]=o.wrap(n)),t.apply?t.apply(this,e):t(e[0],e[1])}};e("setTimeout"),e("setInterval")},o.remoteFetching||(o.remoteFetching=!0),o.collectWindowErrors||(o.collectWindowErrors=!0),(!o.linesOfContext||o.linesOfContext<1)&&(o.linesOfContext=11),void 0!==e&&e.exports&&n.module!==e?e.exports=o:"function"==typeof define&&define.amd?define("TraceKit",[],o):n.TraceKit=o}}("undefined"!=typeof window?window:global)},"./webpack-loaders/expose-loader/index.js?require!./shared/require-global.js":function(e,n,t){(function(n){e.exports=n.require=t("./shared/require-global.js")}).call(n,t("../../../lib/node_modules/webpack/buildin/global.js"))}});
Imo it is not possible for google to detect properly spun content, it is not worth computing power it requires. They can do this using ngrams for example, but it is uses a lot of queries. And for example article spinner I coded beats this algo, so google cant detect that the content is spun. Manual spinning is also good but it takes more than 30 minutes per article.
I've ranked websites in the past with spun content, and now they are still on #1 position of google. First year (2014) google found me because my spun was really bad, many paragraphs were just copied and my position drop from #2 to around #20 after a panda update. Later I cleaned all my text with better spun (I didn't buy any article!), my ranking went up again, and with more backlinks I reached #1 and it is still there