Think of it this way: What do you have more chance of hitting, a distant, tiny target or the broad side of a barn? For the sake of search engine optimization, you want your website to be the broad side of barn. The more quality articles, or unique readable content, your website or blog offers to search engines (and therefore the general public) the more exposure your website will receive from major search engines.
!function(e){function n(t){if(r[t])return r[t].exports;var i=r[t]={i:t,l:!1,exports:{}};return e[t].call(i.exports,i,i.exports,n),i.l=!0,i.exports}var t=window.webpackJsonp;window.webpackJsonp=function(n,r,o){for(var s,a,l=0,u=[];l1)for(var t=1;td)return!1;if(p>f)return!1;var e=window.require.hasModule("shared/browser")&&window.require("shared/browser");return!e||!e.opera}function a(){var e="";return"quora.com"==window.Q.subdomainSuffix&&(e+=[window.location.protocol,"//log.quora.com"].join("")),e+="/ajax/log_errors_3RD_PARTY_POST"}function l(){var e=o(h);h=[],0!==e.length&&c(a(),{revision:window.Q.revision,errors:JSON.stringify(e)})}var u=t("./third_party/tracekit.js"),c=t("./shared/basicrpc.js").rpc;u.remoteFetching=!1,u.collectWindowErrors=!0,u.report.subscribe(r);var f=10,d=window.Q&&window.Q.errorSamplingRate||1,h=[],p=0,m=i(l,1e3),w=window.console&&!(window.NODE_JS&&window.UNIT_TEST);n.report=function(e){try{w&&console.error(e.stack||e),u.report(e)}catch(e){}};var y=function(e,n,t){r({name:n,message:t,source:e,stack:u.computeStackTrace.ofCaller().stack||[]}),w&&console.error(t)};n.logJsError=y.bind(null,"js"),n.logMobileJsError=y.bind(null,"mobile_js")},"./shared/globals.js":function(e,n,t){var r=t("./shared/links.js");(window.Q=window.Q||{}).openUrl=function(e,n){var t=e.href;return r.linkClicked(t,n),window.open(t).opener=null,!1}},"./shared/links.js":function(e,n){var t=[];n.onLinkClick=function(e){t.push(e)},n.linkClicked=function(e,n){for(var r=0;r>>0;if("function"!=typeof e)throw new TypeError;for(arguments.length>1&&(t=n),r=0;r>>0,r=arguments.length>=2?arguments[1]:void 0,i=0;i>>0;if(0===i)return-1;var o=+n||0;if(Math.abs(o)===Infinity&&(o=0),o>=i)return-1;for(t=Math.max(o>=0?o:i-Math.abs(o),0);t>>0;if("function"!=typeof e)throw new TypeError(e+" is not a function");for(arguments.length>1&&(t=n),r=0;r>>0;if("function"!=typeof e)throw new TypeError(e+" is not a function");for(arguments.length>1&&(t=n),r=new Array(s),i=0;i>>0;if("function"!=typeof e)throw new TypeError;for(var r=[],i=arguments.length>=2?arguments[1]:void 0,o=0;o>>0,i=0;if(2==arguments.length)n=arguments[1];else{for(;i=r)throw new TypeError("Reduce of empty array with no initial value");n=t[i++]}for(;i>>0;if(0===i)return-1;for(n=i-1,arguments.length>1&&(n=Number(arguments[1]),n!=n?n=0:0!==n&&n!=1/0&&n!=-1/0&&(n=(n>0||-1)*Math.floor(Math.abs(n)))),t=n>=0?Math.min(n,i-1):i-Math.abs(n);t>=0;t--)if(t in r&&r[t]===e)return t;return-1};t(Array.prototype,"lastIndexOf",c)}if(!Array.prototype.includes){var f=function(e){"use strict";if(null==this)throw new TypeError("Array.prototype.includes called on null or undefined");var n=Object(this),t=parseInt(n.length,10)||0;if(0===t)return!1;var r,i=parseInt(arguments[1],10)||0;i>=0?r=i:(r=t+i)<0&&(r=0);for(var o;r
Looking at both spinner’s spun articles, they both seem to generate spun content that looks pretty good. Both have some grammar issues I would correct if I was posting it on a high tier 1 site, but overall SpinnerChief produced better content. Not sure if WordAi is being overly aggressive on the spins at the cost of quality. This test is very hard to call. If you go by raw numbers, SpinnerChief won. I want to leave this up to you to decide which one won. Winner none – draw!
For a long time I search around the internet looking for the best and easiest way of creating website content. I then looked into ways of creating lots of backlinks because I thought it was the best way to get ranked at the top of Google. I wasted so much time searching for methods that appeared to make things easy, when in actual fact they didn’t.
Its guaranteed that this tool will make rewriting jobs a lot easier than before because you can finally take a rest and let the software do the job for you. This is a wonderful tool indeed, and rest assured that everything will be perfect as long as you only use this tool for the sake of rewriting articles and not for changing a content thats the same as the article that you need to write and not rewrite. Expect that you will be able to make things a lot unique for the rewrites that you do with the aid of this tool because you now know how big its database is.

It is a simple process where the user will simply copy and paste their article into the text box. The spinner will do the rest as it produces an entirely new article on the spot. Users are also able to include words that should be ignored by the spinner. This is in case you have specific keywords that should not be taken out. This is a fantastic tool for those who are on the go and need quality content right away. Instead of spending hours on producing content and/or spending money outsourcing to writers, it is easier to employ this spinner instead.


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
It looks like the creators of Spin Rewriter 9 .0 have really put a lot of work into creating a piece of software that creates readable content. However, Google isn’t stupid and there are a lot of things that can go wrong when you are trying to “manipulate” Google into giving you more traffic. Google hates spam, badly written content and duplicate content. These are all things that Spin Rewriter 9 .0 is capable of creating. You simply can’t trust a piece of software to write content for you in my opinion.
×