Post by account_disabled on Jan 25, 2024 2:00:41 GMT -5
image-based sources were detected Unclear data protection policy How Quillbot differs from other plagiarism checkers All similarities Copy paste Real time Rite Sources Human ChatGPT Scientifically Based on the imageDiscovery quality Quillbot performed relatively poorly with different types of sources. It was only good at detecting copy-paste plagiarism, but did not perform well in both rewriting tests. Quillbot was unable to detect image-based sources and detection of scientific content was limited. It is interesting to note that despite Quillbot being powered by Copyleaks, the results were mixed. It was expected to get the same results, but Quillbot performed worse than Copyscape. Usability Quilbot shares the same user interface as Copyleaks.
It is possible to exclude sources and also to compare the original document with the source next to it. However, as we mentioned in the Copyleaks review, the report is quite difficult to read because all sources are highlighted in the same Special Database color. The online report did not preserve the layout of the original file, making the tool a bit more difficult to work with. Reliability Quillbot is an intermediary, so it poses additional risks of document access or leakage. Download the Quillbot Review PlagScan Review [rating stars = Plagscan report Pluses Quick check Interactive report Discover real-time sources Detects ChatGPT rewrite Minuses Outdated UXUI Low message clarity Bad human overwrite detection No copy and paste plagiarism detected No image-based sources were detected How Plagscan compares to other plagiarism checkers All similarities Copy paste Real time Rite Sources Human ChatGPT Scientifically Based on the image Discovery quality Plagscan performed relatively poorly with different types of sources.
It was good at detecting live and ChatGPT transcribed content. Plagscan, on the other hand, did not perform well with human-transcribed content. Plagscan could not detect image-based sources. Identifying scientific content and even copying and pasting content was limited. Usability Plagscan has poor UXUI, so it is not easy to use. The coincidences are very hard to spot. Plagscan shows changed words, but their overwrite detection is poor. It is possible to exclude sources and also to compare the original document with the source next to it. The online report did not preserve the layout of the original file, and this makes working with the tool a bit more complicated and unpleasant. Reliability Plagscan is a reliable EU company. On the other hand, it was recently acquired by Turnitin, so it is unclear what document policy Plagscan will follow in the future. Download the Plagscan report PlagAware Review [rating stars PlagAware report Pluses Quick check Clear and interactive overview Discover real-time sources Minuses Dated UXUI Poor overwrite detection Poor identification of scientific content No image-based sources were detected How PlagAware differs from other plagiarism checkers All similarities Copy paste Real time Rite Sources Human ChatGPT Scientifically Based on the image Discovery quality PlagAware