Wir haben wegen etliche Ungereimtheiten einer der Betreiber von Plagiarism-Detector geschrieben. Wir fragten insbesondere über den Hinweis auf der Universität Sydney, der auf seiner Site angegeben ist, und weitere Fragen darüber, wo wir Hinweise auf die Firma im Netz finden können. Sein Antwort:
I will try to cover the questions you’ve asked to the best of my abilities. Still I fear that you do not understand the scope of our company – we are just a very small group of people that shared a handy tool for a price. It is just a small shareware project.
1. e-mail: email@example.com
2. No telephone number for support service.
3. Plimus Vendor SkyLine (#85592) – more details are at www.plimus.com
We do not provide telephone support only e-mail and Live Assistance.
Please consider the following – we are using a http://www.plimus.com/ operator. Our e-shop is certified with Visa Certification and VerySign. we have a number of satisfied clients so far, and a working product. Our legal contact info is present on Plimus platform as its vendor.
I guess it will be correct to maintain our dialog only over the product itself. I think we have already provided all the necessary information about our enterprise.
As for the software itself – I will gladly answer only on the user-side of the application usage. As for the program’s internal structure and implementation methods, they are a part of our commercial technology I do not disclose.
Thank you for the detailed explanations to my questions! As for the technical details that may seem helpful.
1. In the report you show a pie chart – it is very colorful. But there are just numbers there, no references to which part is original, which part is plagiarized.
Please make sure the Pie Chart looks like this: (maybe something went wrong with the font size?/position that you are not able to see the captions?) There are captions that explain the meaning of the chart.Plus in the report header there is the following information:
Legend: – “Absolutely Original” the search string marked in green. Google returned zero results. This string is absolutely original. – “Plagiarism is highly suspected” the search string marked in red. Google returned a number of web resources that are not referenced in the Analysed Document. At least 3 (three) or even more reuests (check Frequency Value), each of which contained different text, was reported by Google to point to the same web source. Accidental coincidence is not a question. – “Referenced source” – Google reported that the search string marked in blue was detected as one of the sources, but this source (or its base domain name) was properly referenced in the text. This must be treaded as a legal quotation. – Google reported that the search string marked in orange was found only once in the web. No more text data from this resource has been found in the Analysed Document. In most cases it is just a coinsidence. – Request to Google failed for some technical reason. The search string is marked in black.
The color scheme is the same in all reports. It’s pretty self-explanatory.
2. In Screenshot 3 there are numbers ( 1, 5, 8 ) in front of the URL, we don’t know what these numbers mean.
These numbers are the core idea of the application. Plagiarism-Detection is statistically based: There is a Green triangle with the caption “Frequency”. This number relates to the link to the left. It shows how many times this source was found as a reference throughout the Document.
In case more than 3 strings searched point to the same location in the Internet (say Wikipedia) and this link is not present as a properly referenced one it is considered as a suspected plagiarism. It is explained in any Report Header, you have it above.
3. We have measured the amount of plagiarism in our test cases – we plagiarized them ourselves. You err generally on the side of showing too little plagiarism – certainly because you don’t try to extend or join up sequential plagiarisms. You do 8 words, then skip 7. If you find plagiarism in two sequential 8 word slices, you should try and combine them.
I fear that you totally missed the most advanced functionality of our Report viewer. Have you seen the Cross-Check Highlight in progress? Judging from your explanation – you have not used that at all. Because its main purpose is to show all the equal string patterns that are present in both – the verified Document and the investigated source.
Tomorrow I will prepare a video tutorial on this and post it onto YouTube. As it is easier to show than explain.
8. Some “plagiarism detection systems” are actually term paper harvesters for paper mills. We are concerned that you are giving the impression of not being a serious company.
We do not provide any functionality apart from that is being mentioned. The text that is being analyzed is not sent to any database. Our site does not contain such. This can be easily verified if proper technical investigation will be applied.
Hope this helps!
J.A. Palkovskii mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org