Learning How To Spot Spun Content
Tracking down plagiarism on this site is an exhausting and time consuming task. But it's one that we have to take seriously. I'm not a proponent of intellectual property, as such. I disagree with copyright and patents. But I also think people should get credit for their work, and claiming to have produced some content when you didn't is pure fraud.
One of the problems with tracking down plagiarized content is that it's quite often modified with computer applications called "spinners." In order to help recognize some of the tell-tale signs of spun content, I decided to spin a couple paragraphs of my own writing and publish the results. I hope that we can examine the output and spot some patterns.
My Original Writing
My source material is my own writing, which can be found in one of my earlier posts on this site.
https://steemit.com/spirituality/@bacchist/nerve-endings-of-the-universe
There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "proof" for the existence of god. His writings are somewhat archaic and don't translate too well to modern English. And further, I don't really agree that he proves a judeo-christian god, by any means. But it makes for a good thought experiment. I'll run the risk of oversimplifying or outright misrepresenting him here.
He was an idealist, believing only in ideas and spiritual beings capable of perceiving those ideas. As for the material world, he would say those things actually do exist, but they exist only inside of minds or as they are perceived. Since our empirical evidence clearly shows a persistence in nature, and things exist even when we aren't looking at them, there must be a mind or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and thereby maintaining their existence. That would be God.
The Spinner
I signed up for a trial of WordAi, which is a subscription based service that produces spun content using various techniques and can be customized based on a few different settings.
There are two main spinners. A standard spinner, and a "Turing" spinner, which claims to generate human readable text. I decided to try them both.
The Standard Spinner
The first part of the output is what they call the "Spintax." This seems to be the result of the initial parsing of the text, which the spinner will process to create the final output.
There {was|is} a {18th century|18th-century} bishop/{philosopher|thinker} {named|called} George Berkeley {who had|who'd} {a kind|a type|some sort} of "{proof|evidence}" for {{the|that|your} {existence|lifetime} of {god|lord}|god's {existence|lifetime}}. {His|Their} {writings|documents|articles} {are {somewhat|fairly|relatively} {archaic|traditional|conservative} and {don't|do not} {translate|convert|turn|change|read} {too|also} {well|nicely|effectively} to {modern|contemporary} {English|Language}|{don't|do not} {translate|convert|turn|change|read} {too|also} {well|nicely|effectively} to {modern|contemporary} {English|Language} and are {somewhat|fairly|relatively} {archaic|traditional|conservative}}. And {further|additional}, {I do|I actually do|I really do|I-do}{n't|not} {really|truly|actually|definitely} {agree|concur} that he {proves|demonstrates|shows|establishes} a {judeo-christian|judeo christian|judeochristian} {god|lord}, {by any means|at all|in the slightest}. {But|However|Nonetheless|Nevertheless} it {makes for|creates|produces} {{a good|a great|an excellent|a superb} thought experiment|a thought experiment that is good}. {I'll|I will} {run|operate|work|manage} the {risk|chance|danger} of {{oversimplifying or {outright|downright}|oversimplifying} misrepresenting him {here|below}|{outright|downright} or oversimplifying misrepresenting him {here|below}|misrepresenting him {here|below} or {outright|downright} oversimplifying}.
He was an idealist, {believing|thinking|assuming|trusting|feeling} {only|just|simply|merely|solely} in {ideas and {spiritual|religious} {beings|creatures} {capable of|with the capacity of|effective at|able to} perceiving {those|these} {ideas|suggestions|tips}|{spiritual|religious} {beings|creatures} {capable of|with the capacity of|effective at|able to} perceiving {those|these} {ideas|suggestions|tips} and ideas}. {{As for the|When it comes to|Are you aware that} {material|content|product} {world|earth}, {he would|he'd} {say|declare|claim} those {things|activities|ideas} {actually do|really do|do} {exist|occur}, {but|however|nevertheless} they exist {only|just|simply|merely|solely} {inside of|within|inside} {minds|thoughts|heads|brains} or {as|because|since} they are {perceived|recognized|identified|observed|understood}|{As for the|When it comes to|Are you aware that} {material|content|product} {world|earth}, {he would|he'd} {say|declare|claim} {as|because|since} they are {perceived|recognized|identified|observed|understood} or those {things|activities|ideas} {actually do|really do|do} {exist|occur}, {but|however|nevertheless} they exist {only|just|simply|merely|solely} {inside of|within|inside} {minds|thoughts|heads|brains}|{As for the|When it comes to|Are you aware that} {material|content|product} {world|earth}, {he would|he'd} {say|declare|claim} they exist {only|just|simply|merely|solely} {inside of|within|inside} {minds|thoughts|heads|brains}, although those {things|activities|ideas} {actually do|really do|do} {exist|occur} or {as|because|since} they are {perceived|recognized|identified|observed|understood}|{As for the|When it comes to|Are you aware that} {material|content|product} {world|earth}, {he would|he'd} {say|declare|claim} {as|because|since} they are {perceived|recognized|identified|observed|understood} or they exist {only|just|simply|merely|solely} {inside of|within|inside} {minds|thoughts|heads|brains}, although those {things|activities|ideas} {actually do|really do|do} {exist|occur}}. {{Since|Because} our {empirical|scientific} {evidence|data|research} {clearly|plainly} {shows|exhibits|displays|demonstrates|reveals} a {persistence|determination} in {nature|character|dynamics}, and things {exist|occur} even {when|if|though} {we are|we're}{n't|not} {looking at|taking a look at|considering} them|{Since|Because} our {empirical|scientific} {evidence|data|research} {clearly|plainly} {shows|exhibits|displays|demonstrates|reveals} a {persistence|determination} in {nature|character|dynamics}, and things {exist|occur} even {when|if|though} {we are|we're}{n't|not} currently {looking at|taking a look at|considering} them|Things {exist|occur} even {when|if|though} {we are|we're}{n't|not} {looking at|taking a look at|considering} them, and {since|because} our {empirical|scientific} {evidence|data|research} {clearly|plainly} {shows|exhibits|displays|demonstrates|reveals} a {persistence|determination} in {nature|character|dynamics}|Things {exist|occur} even {when|if|though} {we are|we're}{n't|not} currently {looking at|taking a look at|considering} them, and {since|because} our {empirical|scientific} {evidence|data|research} {clearly|plainly} {shows|exhibits|displays|demonstrates|reveals} a {persistence|determination} in {nature|character|dynamics}}, there {must|has to|should} be {a {mind|brain|head} or {spiritual|religious|psychic}|{spiritual|religious|psychic} or a {mind|brain|head}} being {capable of|with the capacity of|effective at|able to} {experiencing {all things|everything|all-things|things}, and {thereby|therefore|thus} {maintaining|sustaining|keeping|preserving|retaining} their {existence|lifestyle|living|lifetime}|{thereby|therefore|thus} {maintaining|sustaining|keeping|preserving|retaining} their {existence|lifestyle|living|lifetime}, and experiencing {all things|everything|all-things|things}}. That {would|might|could} be God.
We see that a lot of this is suggested synonyms and alternate word orders. The spinner then offered the following renditions. The first is what they call a "SUPER UNIQUE" spin, and the following three are just generic spins.
The first, "SUPER UNIQUE" spin:
There is a 18th-century bishop/thinker called George Berkeley who'd a type of "evidence" for god's lifetime. Their documents do not convert also nicely to contemporary Language and are fairly traditional. And additional, I actually donot truly concur that he demonstrates a judeo christian lord, at all. However it creates a thought experiment that is good. I will operate the chance of downright or oversimplifying misrepresenting him below.
He was an idealist, thinking just in religious creatures with the capacity of perceiving these suggestions and ideas. When it comes to content earth, he'd declare because they are recognized or those activities really do occur, however they exist just within thoughts. Because our scientific data plainly exhibits a determination in character, and things occur even if we'renot currently taking a look at them, there has to be religious or a brain being with the capacity of therefore sustaining their lifestyle, and experiencing everything. That might be God.
The second spin:
There was a 18th-century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who'd some sort of "evidence" for the existence of god. His writings are fairly archaic and don't translate also well to contemporary Language. And additional, I actually donot truly concur that he establishes a judeo christian lord, in the slightest. But it creates a great thought experiment. I'll operate the chance of misrepresenting him here or downright oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, thinking merely in spiritual creatures capable of perceiving these tips and ideas. When it comes to material earth, he would claim because they are recognized or those activities actually do exist, nevertheless they exist simply within brains. Things occur even when we'renot taking a look at them, and because our scientific research clearly shows a determination in dynamics, there must be a mind or religious being capable of therefore retaining their lifestyle, and experiencing things. That might be God.
The third:
There was a 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "evidence" for god's lifetime. Their documents do not convert also effectively to modern Language and are fairly conservative. And further, I don't definitely concur that he proves a judeo christian lord, at all. Nevertheless it produces a great thought experiment. I will run the danger of downright or oversimplifying misrepresenting him here.
He was an idealist, believing merely in ideas and religious beings with the capacity of perceiving those tips. Are you aware that content world, he would declare those activities do occur, however they exist merely within heads or because they are recognized. Since our empirical data clearly shows a determination in character, and things exist even though we aren't taking a look at them, there should be a head or spiritual being capable of experiencing everything, and thus sustaining their existence. That would be God.
And the fourth:
There was a 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had some sort of "proof" for god's existence. Their articles are fairly archaic and don't convert too well to modern English. And further, I really don't actually concur that he proves a judeochristian god, by any means. Nonetheless it produces a thought experiment that is good. I'll manage the chance of misrepresenting him here or downright oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, feeling solely in ideas and spiritual creatures capable of perceiving these suggestions. Are you aware that material earth, he'd claim those ideas actually do occur, nevertheless they exist only within thoughts or as they are observed. Things occur even when we'renot currently looking at them, and because our scientific evidence clearly reveals a determination in nature, there must be psychic or a brain being effective at experiencing things, and thereby preserving their lifestyle. That could be God.
First Impressions?
I've seen a lot of stuff like this on Steemit. I have chalked most of it up to poor English skills; probably from non-native speakers. But this is making me question that assumption.
- feeling solely in ideas
- the documents do not convert also effectively to modern Language
- I don't definitely concur
- I'll operate the chance of misrepresenting him
- I will run the danger of downright or oversimplifying misrepresenting him here.
- thinking just in religious creatures with the capacity of perceiving these suggestions
- there has to be religious or a brain being with the capacity of therefore sustaining their lifestyle
Those are just a few choice snippets... Now, I'm not the most skilled writer in the world. But I'd like to think my work is a bit more intelligible than that!
Clearly there is much room for improvement. I tested the Turing Spin, to see if that was capable of producing something passable...
The Turing Spinner
Right away I noticed that the "Spintax" generated by this spinner was much shorter.
{There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a {kind|sort} of "{proof|evidence}" for the existence of god.|} His writings {{are somewhat|are} archaic and {don't|do not} {{translate too|translate} well|translate} to modern English|{don't|do not} {{translate too|translate} well|translate} to modern English and {are somewhat|are} archaic}. And {further|additionally}, I {don't|do not} {really|actually} {agree|concur} that he {proves|shows|demonstrates|establishes} a {judeo-christian|judeo christian} {god, by any means|god}. But it makes for {{a good|an excellent|a great} thought experiment|a thought experiment that is good}. {I'll|I will} run the risk of {oversimplifying or {outright|instantaneously} misrepresenting him here|misrepresenting him here or {outright|instantaneously} oversimplifying|{outright|instantaneously} or oversimplifying misrepresenting him here}.
He was an idealist, believing {only|just} in {{ideas|thoughts|notions} and spiritual beings capable of perceiving those {ideas|thoughts|notions}|spiritual beings capable of perceiving those {ideas|thoughts|notions} and {ideas|thoughts|notions}}. {As for the|When it comes to} material {world|universe}, {he would|he'd} say {those things {actually|really} do exist, but they exist {only|just} inside of {minds|heads|thoughts} or as {they are|they can be|they're} perceived|as {they are|they can be|they're} perceived or those things {actually|really} do exist, but they exist {only|just} inside of {minds|heads|thoughts}}. Since our empirical evidence {clearly|certainly} {shows|demonstrates} a {persistence|continuity} in nature, and things exist even when {we are|we have been|we're}n't looking at them, there must be a {mind|head} or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and {thereby|thus|therefore} maintaining their existence.{ That would be God.|}
It looks like it focuses more on entire phrases and even sentences, compared to the other spinner which took a heavy handed approach to replacing words with synonyms. Like thee previous spinner, this one produced a "SUPER UNIQUE" spin, and three others which appear to be more generic.
The first, "SUPER UNIQUE" spin:
His writings do not translate to modern English and are archaic. And additionally, I do not actually concur that he shows a judeo christian god. But it makes for a thought experiment that is good. I will run the risk of misrepresenting him here or instantaneously oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, believing just in spiritual beings capable of perceiving those thoughts and thoughts. When it comes to material universe, he'd say as they can be perceived or those things really do exist, but they exist just inside of heads. Since our empirical evidence certainly demonstrates a continuity in nature, and things exist even when we have beenn't looking at them, there must be a head or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and thus maintaining their existence.
Spin number two:
There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "proof" for the existence of god. His writings don't translate well to modern English and are somewhat archaic. And further, I don't actually agree that he demonstrates a judeo christian god, by any means. But it makes for a great thought experiment. I'll run the risk of outright or oversimplifying misrepresenting him here.
He was an idealist, believing only in spiritual beings capable of perceiving those notions and notions. As for the material universe, he would say those things actually do exist, but they exist only inside of heads or as they are perceived. Since our empirical evidence clearly demonstrates a continuity in nature, and things exist even when we aren't looking at them, there must be a head or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and thus maintaining their existence. That would be God.
Spin three:
There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "evidence" for the existence of god. His writings do not translate too well to modern English and are archaic. And additionally, I don't really concur that he shows a judeo-christian god. But it makes for a great thought experiment. I'll run the risk of misrepresenting him here or instantaneously oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, believing just in ideas and spiritual beings capable of perceiving those ideas. When it comes to material universe, he'd say as they're perceived or those things actually do exist, but they exist only inside of thoughts. Since our empirical evidence clearly shows a persistence in nature, and things exist even when we'ren't looking at them, there must be a mind or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and thereby maintaining their existence.
Spin four:
There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "evidence" for the existence of god. His writings do not translate well to modern English and are archaic. And additionally, I do not really concur that he establishes a judeo-christian god. But it makes for a great thought experiment. I'll run the risk of misrepresenting him here or instantaneously oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, believing just in ideas and spiritual beings capable of perceiving those notions. As for the material universe, he'd say those things actually do exist, but they exist just inside of minds or as they're perceived. Since our empirical evidence certainly demonstrates a continuity in nature, and things exist even when we'ren't looking at them, there must be a mind or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and therefore maintaining their existence. That would be God.
First Impressions Of The Turing Spins
These don't actually seem to be significantly better than the first at producing passing English. But they might require a bit more attention to detail, because they preserve more of the original language. That being said, some of the mistakes are critical.
- The "SUPER UNIQUE" spin is so unique, it doesn't even tell you who it's talking about.
- things exist even when we'ren't looking at them
- things exist even when we have beenn't looking at them
- His writings do not translate well to modern English and are archaic. (A logical error that all spins display)
I think it would require a bit more work to determine that these are spun. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
Final Thoughts
This is obviously just a tentative first step towards understanding spun content and learning to spot it. What strikes me is that I see a lot of stuff like this on a daily basis.
I think we have to take a much more critical eye when evaluating content. Even native speakers make mistakes and fail to spot them during revision. So I can see how hard it must be for authors for whom English is a second (or third or more!) language. But it seems to me that when the English is poor and full of mistakes, there is a high probability that it is spun content in some form or another.
I think we should encourage foreign language writers to ask help from native speakers, if they choose to write in English. Because we need to start holding authors to a higher standard. I want Steemit to remain open and inclusive to all people. I just don't want it to come at the expense of rampant fraud and abuse.
That's a very good article.
On no other site would anyone give a shit if the content was spun, because no one would be paying for it....on here, it matters.
But here's MY foolproof method of noticing spun content:
I READ IT!!!
yes, I know, but I think SO many people don't read what they upvote and I'm referring to whales too here.
SECOND: If I read smth and I'm unsure for various reasons(spidey sense we all have, I promise you) I ask a question in the comments. Have you ever seen any whale to comment something like " Can you provide any kind of proof that this is original content?' or something along those line?
Also, it's easy to spun generalities and bullshit. Whenever I see a general article, written from a general perspective - no soul, nothing to say "this is written by ME!" - i am suspicious. You should too, dear reader!
These 2 steps would prevent 99% of the spun content in my opinion, but it's hard work...
Yep. It really is that simple.
People are Upvoting articles with very clearly spun text.
Read it -- and check the poster's history. If they post before the comment or vote on anything, I pass.
I've seen posts on here that weren't very well written, and made little sense. I just thought those were written by non-native English speakers. I've also seen the really general ones that could be about anything if you just change out a few words for new words, and assumed the person was just trying to write in a topic they knew little about, hoping to get upvotes.
It never really occurred to me that plagiarism might be going on here, because it's so much fun to write original content on topics that actually interest you (something I rarely get to do as a business writer....my writing is original, but it's for clients, and it certainly doesn't interest me). Why plagiarize when you can write something cool on your own?
But, I guess there are people who are looking for a "formula" for making money here, and using spun content to do it. I know all about those spinners. I've seen other freelance writers who cater to the internet marketing community offering to sell an original article that they will then spin into three or more different versions, so their clients don't get dinged by Google for duplicate content on their websites. It amazes me people still use spinners, but apparently they do.
What people don't realize is that the best formula for making money here is to write original content that interests you, on topics you're passionate about. That passion will come through in your writing, and your audience (and maybe a few whales) will find you, and upvote you.
Hm... I have seen a few posts like this around, and I didn't think too deeply when the style and mistakes in the author's comments seemed to be very different compared to the article. I'll have to be more careful in future.
Great post!
The community needs to be more vigilant, but it starts before even opening the article. If an account has, for example, 12 different articles on 12 different niche subjects from health, to travel, to body building, it should at the very least, raise some eyebrows.
Secondly, the personal touch goes a long way. Some of the most authentic bloggers on Steemit have great support because they inject their personality into everything they do, through photos, writing style, or sticking to their preferred niches.
Within the text, strange grammar is far more often a result of spun content than poor English in my experience. There are other methods emerging too, some of them extremely cynical, such as using special characters that look like regular letters, in order to avoid detection.
As you can see in this picture, the spun words with special characters can look identical to the real words, and only a spell checker will highlight them.
Admittedly, this method is currently quite effective. It's also giving me a lot of extra work when curating for Steemcleaners. Perhaps we will see the emergence of a robot similar to cheetah that would comment on posts with excessive special characters. Anyone want to organise a bounty for that?
Steemcleaners are catching a lot of this stuff, across all of the spinning methods, including translation, spinning, and special characters. Ideally though (IMO), plagiarised content simply could not be rewarding because the community would demand more authentic personalities.
https://steemit.com/life/@knozaki2015/consciousness-and-matter-our-reality-is-a-mass-hallucination-featuring-njall-as-author
This post gives me this vibe. Also the user that posted this regularly brings in large payouts. He does host other authors on his blog but I get the feeling that something dodgy is going on.
I know what you mean. Reading that is a challenge. Though in that particular case, I think it's likely original work by an author who is not a native speaker. The comments that the author left in response to readers would seem to support that.
However, I'm pretty suspicious of several of the people who publish a high volume of "featured author" posts. Some of them have been caught blatantly plagiarizing and featuring fraudulent accounts... A few of them are located in South Africa, and almost always feature people with limited English skills. They're obviously bootstrapping their friends in a lot of cases. But as we see here, "poor English" can also just mask plagiarism.
Hello,
in this particular case, I can confirm that the author has first written it in Russian, than it has been translated by him, and a translator has proof read the text.
I think for a native it might feel spunned, but i got the first edition, which was unreadable in English ;)
and than we had two proof reading sessions until I accepted the text.
Hope this helps !
Thanks for providing more detail. :)
Yes, the first text was a true njall ;) than he translated it with a translator (like google translate) and his own work, and at the end it was proof read by a translator, who is paid in SBD. (there is a real economy on Steemit now)
I know at least two translators , one helping the russian community, and Ines-f doing all the translation for the german community.
A lot of Russian posts that 'were seen by translator' are sometimes shown to me "the translator", and all I can do is facepalm. But at least I fix some of that, if the post is editable. At least people learn that in a lot of cases "We asked a friend who is good at English" just doesn't cut it. At some point I am sure there will be a translation service set up, since as of last three days I am absolutely swamped by requests to translate stuff, so much that I am kinda drained to write up my own stuff. But at least translations pay out more than my own posts. :-D It also gives me time to work on them a bit better, or, perhaps, I am just telling myself that.
And yeah, just by looking at the text I can hear the Russian version. Very peculiar sentence structure.
@knozaki2015 is German, I believe, and likely helps other German writers. But, you never can tell anymore. Once the doubt is in our minds, everything can look like abuse and fraud. That's why transparency and honesty is important when money is involved.
or, you know, don't upvote :)
ask a question in the comments, see if it's a REAL PERSON. A real person will defend his article and be willing to discuss. A spinner will bullshit you.
Or they just don't respond or make excuses, wait until the payout comes, and quickly cash out their big sums from whale votes. It's not like that doesn't happen all the time.
it can happen once. if it happens twice, is on us as a community!
wow this is super interesting ! I never imagined these kind of services existed!
Wow, excellent work @bacchist ...big thumbs up. As someone else commented , I was not even aware such things existed... I am a cynical person when it comes to human nature and I reckon as much as 30% (guess!!) is plagiarised.
I do wonder sometimes if it's either a non-native speaker, or if it's some kind of spun article. I tend to think it's spun, unless I see good indications the user is exceptionally living and breathing.
thanks for everyone who puts in the effort to spot it! ~~