Plagiarism Checkers - Are they all rubbish?

Go for Copyscape Premium.

I seriously don't understand how people think Copyscape is good or even suggest Grammarly for checking uniqueness.
You'd not choose Copyscape to check for grammar would you?


I highlighted how crap Copyscape is here;



My Mrs runs a professional content service and they use Grammarly to check for grammar.
They use Surfer SEO to structure content if client wants that.
They use 2 plagiarism checkers the cheaper one of which is Quetext Pro.


This is the difference between the shit that's churned out by writers using Copyscape that isn't unique and quality content that is totally unique.

I don't know how come people suggest Grammarly as a plagiarism checker. What I use now -

1. Copyscape - I tried to keep the word count below 1000 for better results.
2. Plagiarism Checker X Tool
3. Small SEO Tools (It's free so why not give a try)
4. Manual check-up via Google using the quotation.

So if a content passed 4 of it, then I prefer to count it as a unique piece of content. I have Grammarly pro as well but not considering it as a plagiarism checker.

MisterF said:

My Mrs runs a professional content service and they use Grammarly to check for grammar.
They use Surfer SEO to structure content if client wants that.
They use 2 plagiarism checkers the cheaper one of which is Quetext Pro.

Click to expand...

I am using Surfer and POP both. I just subscribed to the surfer this month, but I found not a big difference between Website Auditor and Surfer. Except for the NLP part, the auditor covers the term analysis and suggests the same way surfer did. Surfer shows the average word count, total paragraph, and heading count, which is an additional factor. I need to try Cora SEO to see the difference comparing with these tools.

shawn29874 said:

As per my experience both Quetext and Copyscape are excellent tools for plagarism checker

Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback, so far I had many situations where text passed Quetext free and Copyscape premium, but couldn't pass 1text.com , so I don't know really, to me it seems copyscape is overrated.

Velenterprise said:

I use Grammarly and Copyscape. However, I rely more on the latter since it is more advance IMO.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback, many people here seems to disagree with grammarly, and I have not tested it, but copyscape failed numerous times.

bhcg101 said:

Agreed. Copyscape is my go to when I need to consult a reliable checker. I also agree and can confirm that it seems to work better on smaller chunks of text.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback, to me even with small chunks of texts copyscape misses too many articles. try 1text.com for the articles that passes copyscape, you could be surprised.

Digirulz said:

Check out Copyscape and Quetext.

Click to expand...

Tried both, they seem to work in a similar way, hence they seem to spot the same articles, but there have been many situations where texts passed these two and couldn't pass 1text.com

ContentWriter said:

We already tried Copyscape, Grammarly, and Quetext (all premium versions).

Quetext is the best among the three. This observation is based on years' worth of usage.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback. I am pretty new to this, but I have checked a few hundred articles recently, as i try to revive an old site. Honestly I think both copyscape and quetext seems over-rated. I think people should check alternatives and you might be surprised to find out that the articles you thought were unique, might not be unique at all.

rehan666v said:

Indeed. I use both. But i think quetext is better than grammarly found more matching lines. Even re-written paragraphs more efficiently.

Click to expand...

thanks for your feedback, relying on just 1 tool is really safe, when I tried all tools mentioned here, I rarely ended up with unique articles...

MisterF said:

I seriously don't understand how people think Copyscape is good or even suggest Grammarly for checking uniqueness.
You'd not choose Copyscape to check for grammar would you?


I highlighted how crap Copyscape is here;

Content Marketplace Preventing Plagiarism

Can we set a minimum requirement for all content sellers to stop using Copyscape and instead use Quetext Pro as a benchmark for preventing plagiarism? This will mean that there will be fewer possibilities of Shitlists, plus buyers who get an article can also receive a Quetext report. Copyscape...

www.blackhatworld.com

My Mrs runs a professional content service and they use Grammarly to check for grammar.
They use Surfer SEO to structure content if client wants that.
They use 2 plagiarism checkers the cheaper one of which is Quetext Pro.


This is the difference between the shit that's churned out by writers using Copyscape that isn't unique and quality content that is totally unique.

Click to expand...

As mentioned above, I really think likewise about copyscape, i have only used the free version of Quetext , but it got me pretty similar results with copyscape, so I'm not a fan of it neither. But the pro version might be better, i dont know.

nichexposure said:

I don't know how come people suggest Grammarly as a plagiarism checker. What I use now -

1. Copyscape - I tried to keep the word count below 1000 for better results.
2. Plagiarism Checker X Tool
3. Small SEO Tools (It's free so why not give a try)
4. Manual check-up via Google using the quotation.

So if a content passed 4 of it, then I prefer to count it as a unique piece of content. I have Grammarly pro as well but not considering it as a plagiarism checker.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback, Plagiarism Checker X is one that I had not heard of, will look into it. But as mentioned above, copyscape did not impress me.

Just wanted to add a few things, which I noticed, to this thread.

*Copyscape works very well for text that was not indexed by Google. Whereas 1text.com fails this, because I presume they only scan google's index
*Copyscape tends to work better for older content. It could be because they are older and scanned older articles, i am not sure. 1text.com seems to miss older articles for similar reasons?
*Also copyscape seems to miss more recent articles, could it be because they do not scan new content anymore? 1text.com was much more efficient on newer articles.
*Copyscape and quetext seems to use similar algorithms, if a text passes copyscape, it also passes quetext most of the time. Whereas when I combined copyscape or quetext with 1text, I had much better result. If a text passed copyscape, it did not pass 1text, vica versa.
*After a couple of hundreds of articles tested, I am pretty shocked to see that most of the content provided by suppliers, are just articles spinned or re-written articles. Finding an article that passes all checkers were very very rare for me.

Quetext was good for me but recently they also moved to Credits based payment so expensive for me as I get ton of Content written out daily. Searching for next best deep search and unlimited pliagrism checker

Copyscape premium is the best one, if you are looking for free tool, try smallseotool.com. They are good.

you can check plagiarism simply pasting the content in google search bar with double quotes. like "content"

sabhan said:

Quetext was good for me but recently they also moved to Credits based payment so expensive for me as I get ton of Content written out daily. Searching for next best deep search and unlimited pliagrism checker

Click to expand...

So far, I don't think we can rely on just 1 tool, because there isn't a perfect one which detects all plagiarism. we have to use at least a couple.

blueberryim said:

Copyscape premium is the best one, if you are looking for free tool, try smallseotool.com. They are good.

Click to expand...

As mentioned above, copyscape alone is missing too many articles, but works better combined with 1text.com which is a free tool.

Jennifer-Kent said:

you can check plagiarism simply pasting the content in google search bar with double quotes. like "content"

Click to expand...

sure but that will only detect the exact matches, it'll not show slightly spinned or rewritten ones.

@exceed_x what's been your experience with 1text ?

bhcg101 said:

@exceed_x what's been your experience with 1text ?

Click to expand...

Well, overall it is not bad. It's free which is great. One downside could be the time it takes sometimes to scan the text. It cannot catch articles that are not indexed by google. also it seems to miss older content. but when combined with copyscape it does actually work pretty well.

initially i wanted to find out about the best tool on the market in order to use just 1 tool, so I have been testing all of them, but I found out quickly that unfortunately 1 tool is not enough. Because all of them are missing some things. Only by combining 2 tools that works differently, i got good results, so now I am using copyscape+1text which seems to detect any kind of plagiarism well enough.

I use both Grammarly premium and Copyscape and I would say Copyscape before Grammarly because Copyscape will catch things Grammarly misses.

Copyscape Premium high quality lookup all the way. It is costly, but worth it.

You can build your own if you are up to it. They are not doing rocket science, but not worth the hassle of building one unless you are testing thousands of articles on a daily basis.

Copyscape premium version

Ronnie Machio said:

I use both Grammarly premium and Copyscape and I would say Copyscape before Grammarly because Copyscape will catch things Grammarly misses.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your comment, if you use another tool you might find out that copyscape misses a lot of things too.

littlewebdragon said:

Copyscape Premium high quality lookup all the way. It is costly, but worth it.

You can build your own if you are up to it. They are not doing rocket science, but not worth the hassle of building one unless you are testing thousands of articles on a daily basis.

Click to expand...

thanks, I will have to disagree with copyscape, as it is not good enough to use it alone, only when combined with at least 1 more tool, then it gets useful.

MatjazAndreas said:

Copyscape premium version

Click to expand...

Thank you. Copyscape is good but cannot relied upon by itself, needs to be combined with alternatives. It misses many content

Grammarly Works fine , i dont think Plagiarism checkers are rubbish because they works as it should be done. even the free services are working great

1 text > quetext / copyscape > grammarly > other free checkers which are ranked for "plagiarism checker online"