WebsitecontentWizard.

Hi,

Has anyone tried this one out ? if yes, or are planning to do so, please DO NOT.

David Watson states his software can generate content rich niche articles in 14 seconds (200 of them).

ITS A TOTAL SCAM!

I fell for this gimmick and lost $137 bucks, paypal like always has been a pain in the butt and refused to do anything about it, and apparently Mr Watson has refused a refund too, and has stopped replying to mails.

I consider doing a little hard work, reading up article submission websites, and then AFTER reading and getting good knowhow, writing the content of your own website the only real way out! instead of falling for such scam softwares.

Write your own content, read and re-read thats they best way to get a good ranking.

Hope this helps, and please do not buy the scam software.



Regards

 

Thanks for the heads up mate

 

Yeah... anyone here could have told you that automatic content generation would be garbage. Next time you know to ask first, that's all.

Jenn

 

@way2income: I have also bought the software, actually I quite liked it, it did not behave like I thought it woould but it still worked. It takes a while before you have built up your synonyms for various key phrases in your document/project but when you have a fair few it really does generate some different content.

Anyway, I was unable to get it working though the proxy server on my other machine and decided to file for a refund. Simply I sent an email to refunds -at - websitecontentwizard.com and heard nothing back for a few days. However, after a few days I got a reply from David himself and he put my mind to rest - he has been really busy with lots of orders and a full mailbox as his software has only just launched. Refund on the way and that's been confirmed by Paypal. It takes a few days for the bank transfer to take place for me to finally get the money back and I guess that this is why you also have not had your money back - perhaps it takes a while for the payment to transfer to David Watson's account. Only when it's there can he issue a refund.

One final word, perhaps you have had a bad experience with Mr. Watson but you should not call his software a SCAM, it could harm his business as this forum is pretty popular. (and no, I am not working for David or affiliated in any way!!). I didn't find the software fitted my needs exactly but it is pretty good all the same. He refunded my money as promised and answered my emails directly - albeit a few days later.

 

Thanks for your help.

I had this worm inside but I smelled something wrong with this "Harry Potter"

Then, I believe Michael Cheney, the guy promoting him is a Crook too...

Good luck to every one!

 

Was just readiing his 14 second report and he has a testimonial from ezinarticles.com that his article was so good and it would be on their frontpage etc etc ... so i was curious to find how many articles he had submitted. Well just try it your self and look if you can find David Watson in their directory....I guess he is doing something wrong as he is nowhere to be found.

That and also the slumbering feeling of unique content can't be made by machines made me stair away from it

 

In David's promo he gave an example of how one of his articles was submitted to Ezine. That got him banned by them for submitting machine generated content.
Hence you won't see any of his articles.

In all fairness though, I know people who are using this proggie quite succesfully. Where many came unstuck is that they thought they could generate articles straight out of the box, where in fact you have to spend a fair amount of time "training" the software. Once you're over that hump it seems to live up to its promise.... or so I've been told.

 

I still have some outstanding affiliate earnings from December that have not been paid for the website content wizard. I have sent email after email to try to get this paid and it is not forthcoming, if I were you I would stay away from the product and the affiliate scheme as the software is a sham and so is the man behind it.

 

Automatic content generation can work well when it comes to things like feeds and such. RSS feeds are free... thats good. I've considered trying some of the payed content generators just for fun. Sometimes when really tired - considered paying money for it. Now I won't. Thanks for the heads up.

 

RSS feeds are not content generators, they're just feeds of someone else's content.

 

Thanks for the thread, you just save me another $197 (today websitecontentwizard's price).

 

Thanks for the heads up. Being so new to this you all are saving me soooo much time, trouble, and MONEY!!

 

Hi people,

After doing a lot of research and reading literally
hundreds of posts, reviews, and comments from
reknown writers, my opinion about this software
is that it is great.

Actually, you can find a link about this
excellent software at PaulDomains.com

I haven't found a single person claiming that
the software does not deliver as in the case
of Mr. Watson's here.

In a few words, what this software does is
to do all the research and gathering information
from you feeded by both, a propietary database
and Internet.

You can write in less than 15 minutes and article
about any topic, even when you know absolutely
nothing about it. And what is best is that it takes
into account copyrighted material restrictions in
order to protect you from duplicating content.

This guy is a genious! Read about it at PaulDomains.com
and return here with your insight if you please.

 

That's certainly a load of something. Sounds like spam more than anything, especially considering how few posts you have. Reality check time:

1. No piece of software can "do all the research and gathering information" for "any topic."

2. A piece of software can't determine what's considered to be a copyright violation and what's not. Contrary to popular belief on places like DP, there is no set amount of changes to another's content that constitutes a relief from copyright infringement (other than 100%), and rewording something doesn't get you off the hook. You can't pull even a few sentences without citing the source. Pulling sentences b/c they're keyword-rich doesnt' come close to constituting actual research. "Research" also doesn't involve copying bits and pieces and slapping your name on it to pretend to be an authority on a source. That just makes you a liar and a thief. And it's called plagiarism.

3. Gotta love the false advertising bit in there... newsflash: don't call something "instant" if it's not.

4. Sure, you can find plenty of positive comments about it online. Now look through them and see how much of it is the same hype, and how many of those people praising it are just affiliates trying to make a buck. And let's face it... the people loving things like this are also usually the ones who wouldn't know a "good" article if it bit them on the behind, which is why they can't be bothered to write them themselves... where even so-so writers can often whip up a quickie SEO crap article in about 15 minutes.

Long story short... if you can't write your own content and can't pay to have something even remotely worthwhile done, you're in the wrong business. Get some business sense and come up with a better model, b/c in the long run things like this are going to a) get you in trouble legally, b) make you look like an idiot and not an expert in a niche (one of the big reasons for these article directory articles to begin with), and / or c) completely flop in the future since this is the kind of crap Google and other SEs have every reason to try to devalue and derank in the future... meaning your business model can crumble pretty quickly and at any time.

 

sorry to hear that. I was recently scammed myself, I know how angry it makes you. For me, the scam was a background checking service called NetDetective.com - do NOT use their service, it is a scam & theft in the truest sense... not only did they lie about their service, but they kept charging my card over and over. My credit card company went after them and got all of my money back, thankfully.

 

Jenn,

I won't discount your comments as they are very much true. I just want to point out there is a way to "write articles" in an automated fashion.

There are certain caveats to #1.

Several years ago for one of my dissertations I worked up a system which could take existing data, and generate new data but with similar "look and feel", yet different. This particular research used music, but it would have been just as easy to use written language.

The system was fed all of Vivaldi's works, and it generated a new music piece with sufficient similarity and feel that could be contributed to Vivaldi.

In the same fashion, text from various sites relating to key phrases can be used to produce a reasonable page which other machines would interpret as appropriate human text. Of course we could detect the errors, but it would be hard for an other machine (read SE) to detect that it was machine made.

Ok.. Well... Never mind.

 

If it were just about fooling SEs, that would be fine. But it never is, even if it's the intention. Real readers always have to be considered, b/c if they can find it and see it (which you'd be enabling by optimizing them for search), your reputation is at risk. But the biggest issue here is the legality... you can't piece something together from someone else's work legally, without citing your sources. And these kinds of things aren't going to cite every line or other line in the article, b/c frankly it would defeat the purpose.

On another note related to this software... I find it so comical the way it's touted as being able to create pieces that make you look like an "expert" that can even fool human editors. You can't base those kinds of claims on people simply glancing something over to approve it or not approve it for article directories... a) they're often not really "editors" at all, so fooling them isn't proving a heck of a lot in most cases, b) they likely have enough to approve so that they're not reading every piece word for word and checking everything for copyright violations (although in light of software like this, they probably should, just to cover their backs legally), and c) they're not experts in each subject coming through, so again, they really wouldn't know (and manipulating people into thinking you're an expert using stolen words is just disgusting). This whole software package just seems slimy like all of the other crap generators being pawned off on anyone too lazy to actually work. It's sad. Hopefully the users end up sued and learn the hard way...

 

Thanks for the post...