An easy measure will be how many readers or comments you got in those automated posts compared to others?

Find some info, share with us and take some lessons from it(if there are any lessons to take).

I don’t want to sound provocative – but the first thought I had while reading your article was: THIS is NOT the next web. I will do my best not to link to any content which is produced automatically. It is nice to see people monetizing their content, even if a great part is quoted and so on.

But you usually read the blogs which really create content or create unique collections of links and reviews to their contents, if you have a healthy mind.

What you call “unique” means a unique collection of human readable sentences – unique in the sense of “array_unique($myArray)”. This is not what unique content is.

If Techcrunch is reporting about Datapresser or not – I don’t care and I am sure that in the long run no one will really care about those sites, because they generate just those silly random links via SEs, where we all click on the back button very quickly.

If you have a healthy mind, you will see, whether the content is made by a human being who cares or one who confuses value with money.

Wish the best for your blog, but I think this tool is really not worth an article. Just use it silently with an open eye – but to make it to an established way to make money is to rate VERY low.

Creating content with human value and creating links to it, this is the web like today and the base for the NEXT WEB.

Thank you.

While I can’t be absolutely 100% certain about the tools other writers use to create their articles, I can say that all of the articles I have created for the Next Web are hand written, and not pushed together mechanically with any ‘content creation’ tools – and I think that is true for all of the writers here.

The only tool available on the Next Web Blog is from Zemanta, an excellent resource which suggests related links, photos and tags for articles – but only makes these suggestions based on what is within the article that is written. We’re thinking of trying out a crowdsourcing grammar checking tool to improve the quality of the writing, as so many of the authors are not native English speakers, but that’s the extent of it.

Real people write the content here, using their brain as the main software tool. I also regularly check through and amend articles – as a native English speaker, I can pick up typos and grammatical errors far more readily than my enviably multilingual colleagues.

I think this software is a logical, but very cynical development, and it’s not the kind of tool The Next Web is going to advocate or use. There is a team of great writers and editors here, and although we’re as keen as anyone else to make producing interesting, insightful and compelling articles easier, using this tool is not how we are going to do it now, or anytime soon.

This tool creates a mechanical regurgitation of other people’s content, and is largely targeted at SEO ‘pimping’ for Affiliate and Adword-driven sites. That’s certainly not what this blog is about.