[mattscyoc]

I think it depends on your own definition. I think spam is highly subjective, no?

[tsherr]

I'd suggest that any article written "without any knowledge of the topic" is of zero value. I'd define spam as zero value posts/messages. Ergo, it's spam. Not sure how you can argue it isn't.

Not attacking you, I'm just interested in your defence of this sort of thing

[mattscyoc]

"without any knowledge on the topic" refers to the time BEFORE the user uses the tool. During and after the tool the user will certainly have knowledge after reading and curating the questions and answers, right? Just like, before you read about a topic you "have no knowledge" but after, you might say that you have some now.

[city41]

The issue is you have no knowledge of the subject. You said so yourself:

> without ANY writing (outside of deleting and organizing), and without ANY knowledge of the topics or SEO target keywords

So your content can't be trusted. It's being curated by someone who has no idea of its accuracy.

[tsherr]

So when you say "without any knowledge" you meant, you picked a topic you didn't understand, researched it thoroughly, then made the post?

So you didn't weeks/months becoming an expert before making the post?

Then it's not spam.

[tata71]

Same, for the record.

[PedroBatista]

No, it isn’t.

I really don’t have a major problem with this, after all you’re just another in a million.

But I have a problem with you trying to sell yourself as a good guy all full of virtues.

[mattscyoc]

I think it's possible to separate virtues from this. It's a research tool, ultimately. All the sources/sites are cited and links given. That is encouraged, of course. The user is ultimately in control of the tool to change, add to, curate, etc. the research. This just makes that process a lot faster.

[glup]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair