agree. I’d never promote a sponsor that would allow a scum bag to take what would otherwise have been mine or yours and that’s what happens with every site that is designed by such methods.
The (poor) arguement is that since its not all from one person’s site that it isn’t really plagurism the same way it isn’t plagurism if you use one of those softwares that have you write the article with like 3 different sentences for each keypoint in your article and then it mixes up all those possible combinations to provide you with literally as many unique versions of that article as the math would allow for every group of 3 versions of the same sentence that is found in the article.
I’m no math genius (used to be pretty good though) but I would assume if an article had even just a mere 3 different intersections where the group of 3 different versions of the same sentence were added into the article that it would provide 9 unique versions of the article.
The arguement can be made that all 9 versions of the same article are unique since technically they may have enough different words to rise above the boundaries which are provided by the search engines and in truth … if they are good enough … I can see how they should be given credit for all unique articles but that’s only if they’re good enough and I don’t think too many will pursue the process if SEs install some kind of algo that picks out those mediocre articles that just barely make sense because the different sentences don’t actually blend well and read even worse.
they read … exactly like these pieced together articles go. Like they were bits thrown together hap-hazardly … because as long as that is rewarded it will continue and increase in severity.
I predict that the net will one day be nearly as tough to get something published as is the real world now … it probably won’t be that tough but you know what I’m saying. It will have to actually be good enough to be read without any wrinkles or hiccups.