Yarn Spinning of Adequate Stupidity
- Mar
- 15
- 2013
- Posted by Tammy Ditmore
- Posted in Editing, Language, Publishing, Writing
Adequate stupidity?
Yes, I think that about sums up “spinning,” a process that uses software to generate what Spinrobot.com claims is “legible, grammatically correct … syntax” with a single click.
Spinning software is designed to allow you to revise written material in seconds by generating synonyms to replace at least 20% of the words in a piece. Proponents promise the process will produce an article that is just different enough to be unique in the eyes of Google’s all-powerful search engines—not produce great literature.
I can’t really say whether spinning actually fools Google, and I can’t imagine it could produce great literature, but I am confident it can provide you a good laugh. I first learned about spinning—and saw evidence of it—this week through a discussion on a LinkedIn group for writers and editors.
The evidence comes from the Cyprus Times, which rather inexplicably posted this unattributed review on March 6 of a New York production of Shakespeare’s As You Like It. The review is easily identifiable as a sort-of-revised, mostly-purloined version of this review by Anita Gates that appeared a day earlier in the New York Times.
Read on its own, the Cyprus version is more baffling than funny, beginning from its opening lines: “Celia, a small ancillary impression in As You Like It, now during a New Victory Theater in a honeyed and worldly new entertainment for all ages…”.
But when you read those lines next to the NYT opening—“Celia, a mere supporting character in As You Like It — now at the New Victory Theater in a sweet and sophisticated new staging for all ages…”—and it becomes amusingly apparent that particular words have simply been replaced with thesaurus-approved synonyms.
The review in the Cyprus Times, which Wikipedia tells me is the leading English-language newspaper in North Cyprus, informs readers that “Shakespearean comedies can get a small PG-13,” but says this production “stays glorious rudimentary Shakespeare.” (NYT translation: “remains excellent introductory Shakespeare.”)
If I had not seen this Cyprus Times article in conjunction with a discussion on spinning, I might have blamed the unwieldy English on translation errors. But once I learned about spinning, I can clearly spot evidence of revisions that would seem wise only to a piece of software. For example, most every “the” from the NYT review has been replaced with “a” in the Cyprus version. Such changes might seem minor, but they lead to silly-sounding phrases, such as “set in a early 20th century,” or significant twists in meaning: “wild about a boar” does not equal “wild about the boar.”
I made a brief investigation this week through the all-knowing Google and discovered a whole “spinning” world, with users and advertisers debating not the ethics or wisdom of the method, but which software or process can reproduce and “revise” the fastest and easiest. Apparently, spinning is how writers who agree to write web content for pennies-a-word can survive: produce one piece then quickly churn out multiple versions that will be just-different-enough to be deemed unique by Google search bots.
Of course, if you can spin multiple versions of your own work so quickly and easily, how much quicker and easier could it be to spin multiple versions of someone else’s work? From what I could see, the spinning sites don’t address that or other ethical or legal questions, but I didn’t get beyond the first pages of most of the sites as I was unwilling to provide identifying information required to go deeper into the material.
So, should copyright holders and teachers on the lookout for plagiarized material be worried that such software exists in the world? Well, I definitely think they should be aware that spinning exists, but I’m not so sure they should be alarmed—at least yet.
As long as spinning renders “adolescent angst” as “youth stress”; “devoted to” as “clinging to”; and “to keep track of” as “to keep lane of,” most native English speakers will be able to spot the impostors with ease.
The best contribution of current creations may be to prove that software developed to produce synonyms can’t adequately reproduce the richness of the English language, which the NYT might describe as having “just enough silliness” to make spinning a display of “usually adequate stupidity.”
I have to admit, though, that even while I’m snickering at these results, the idea that this process exists and apparently is being used openly and fairly frequently makes me nervous. Does it bother you too? Am I missing something? Is there a way spinning could be used for legitimate purposes? I would love to hear from you if you know more about this method or just want to discuss spinning and what it produces.
Search
Blog Categories
Contact
Testimonials
Personally, I feel the editing process is the most important aspect of writing–it can be a nightmare if the editor and the writer are not on the same page. … Tammy knows what she is doing, she is easy to work with, and she delivers on time.
I can’t believe my good fortune to have found Tammy to edit my nonfiction book. I had narrowed down my editor search to ten; then I took advantage of their free sample offers. Nine of the editors were okay. Tammy’s edit, however, really showed her strength for detail and content development. I was absolutely wowed. She suggested, for example, how to improve the Introduction’s hook, added sentences that clarified a paragraph’s thought better, and deleted unnecessary words. She also mentio… Read more
I appreciate Tammy’s willingness to ask questions when appropriate, flex on deadlines, offer sound advice, and rewrite sentences or sections as needed. Her command of substantive and copy editing make Tammy an asset to any project.
Tammy Ditmore’s timely, thorough, detailed and accurate proofreading made my book print ready. She delivers high quality work on schedule and is a pleasure to work with.
Tammy has helped me become a better writer. I always look forward to seeing her email pop into my inbox. As I open the email and double click on the Microsoft Word file, I look forward with anticipation to reviewing her edits. Like a used target at a shooting range there are red marks riddled throughout the page. And the right column is full of thoughtful comments. I appreciate her precision and thoroughness. Because I know every word she cuts, every crooked sentence she straightens, and every p… Read more
I wanted to take a moment and thank you for your wonderful work. I marvel at your eye for detail and your ability to make a written text so much better.
Tammy Ditmore was the consummate professional. She was very humble in dealing with me and tailored her editing style to fit my specific needs. She was prompt and punctual with deadlines and was very open to communicating with me. I would hire her again in a heartbeat.”
Tammy Ditmore edited my book, The Quest for Distinction: Pepperdine University in the 20th Century. It was a huge assignment, requiring skills that set her apart from most professional editors. She recognized the key themes of the manuscript immediately and proceeded to examine each paragraph, actually each word, in light of those themes. The result was a briefer, more coherent manuscript that will be read with greater interest and understanding.
I highly recommend Tammy Ditmore to you. She has edited three of my books in the past two years. Each time, I have been impressed with her professionalism, and pleased with her ability to provide a polished text.
This book has been a major effort for me over the past 15 years—both emotionally and in time commitment. Your feedback helped me give it structure. Your insightful questions encouraged me to go deeper in my understanding and intentions, which provided enhanced clarity. Your recommendations provided a professional perspective that I needed towards getting it published. Thank you so much! When entertaining any future writing projects, you will be the first person I contact.