There are lots of reviews about the product, and many people here are writers that experienced a wonderful time doing their job with the aid of the tool. Most of these people usually say that you dont need to rely on the tool completely to get the job done because that will fail at most times. What you need to do according to the reviewers is that you should learn how to edit the article a bit so that it wont look completely spun since there are some clients that hate this tool.
Not sure about version 1, but I'm testing version 2 right now and I have to say it's the best auto spinner I've seen bar none. The content is actually extremely readable and probably better than the manual spins a lot of people do out there. However, some of the content doesn't pass copyscape so make sure you play around with the settings. Minor edits should do the trick. I'm on the trial now but seriously thinking of keeping the Turing plan for my Tier 1 content.
People, I’m pretty sure over half of the articles you read nowadays come out from a spinner such as this one, and you can’t even tell the difference… believe me I know – I publish a lot of these articles myself, using Spin Rewriter, and they are very good and believable, you wouldn’t know the difference between one of them and an article written by a human.
Spin Rewriter 9 is probably the best product in the market… I get great EPCs promoting it and, what is most important to me is that my clients actually love the product. Very low cancellation rates & practically no refund rates. All around it’s a fantastic product — if it fits your business at all, then you definitely have to get on board & promote it!
And then there is the amount of time that it takes to create content with this software. I have had past experience with text spinners and although it might seem like a fast way to write content, it often isn’t! By the time you have chosen a piece of content (or multiple pieces of content to blend together), put it in the software and produced content with this software, you could instead have created content that Google loves.
×