Paste the DeepSeek draft into the box below and press Humanize. It rewrites every sentence in one pass, up to 12,000 characters or roughly 2,000 words per run, and costs one credit for every fifty words. To see the shape of the problem before you touch anything, run the checker first: it returns a 0 to 100 score and one of three verdicts in seconds, on any text of 65 words or more, for one credit. The registry of named writing tells runs beside it in your browser and marks the sentences behind the reading, free and with no daily limit. Ten credits a day are free per network. No account, no card, no email address.
DeepSeek writes clean, confident, evenly measured prose, and that is the problem. The sentences come out close to the same length. They open on the same handful of words. The rhythm at the end of the piece is the rhythm at the start. Human drafts are lumpier than that, because a writer gets impatient and drops a six-word sentence next to a thirty-word one.
The registry measures that flatness as a coefficient of variation across your sentence lengths, and it runs in your browser, free, with no daily limit. Human drafts usually land above 0.45. A reading well under that gets flagged as uniform rhythm, and a straight DeepSeek answer often sits there.
Sitting on top of the rhythm is a set of stock phrases the registry names one by one. In a DeepSeek draft, look first for "plays a crucial role", "serves as a", "a testament to", "at its core", "in the realm of", "when it comes to" and "underscores the importance of". Then the negation pivot, usually in the first or last sentence of a paragraph: not merely a tool, but a shift in how the work gets done. Then the rule of three, where every idea arrives in a set of three whether or not the third one is real.
No single one of these is bad writing. All of them appear in published human prose. What marks a draft is density and evenness: the same few moves repeating across a few hundred words, spaced out, with nothing that breaks the pattern.
Switch the reasoning mode on and the answer often reads like an outline that got filled in. You get an opening line that restates your own prompt back at you, a middle that marches through First, Second and Finally, and a closing paragraph that summarises the three paragraphs directly above it.
The announced conclusion is the easiest to catch and the most worth cutting. "In conclusion", "To sum up", "Ultimately" at the head of a final paragraph. The registry flags all three. The reader can already see it is the last paragraph. Delete the label and the paragraph usually improves, because without the announcement it has to say something new to justify existing.
Two paste artifacts travel with the text. Copying out of the chat window brings the markdown along: asterisks around bold lead-ins, hash marks on headings, a rule between sections. In Word or Google Docs those land as literal characters or as formatting you did not choose. Paste as plain text and style it yourself. Second, if you copied while the reasoning panel was open, read your first line before anything else. Reasoning text has a habit of ending up at the top of a document nobody proofread.
None of this is particular to one company's app. If your draft came out of a writing assistant with an unfamiliar name, the same tells apply and the fix is identical.
It does not report DeepSeek. A score is a judgement about the writing in front of it, not a lookup of which model produced it. Nothing in ordinary text carries a signature, so no number can name the source.
The checker here returns a score from 0 to 100 and one of three verdicts: reads as AI-generated, borderline, or reads as human-written. It needs at least 65 words, takes seconds, and costs one credit whether you paste a paragraph or a full essay. Beside it the registry marks the sentences and names the pattern behind each one, and sentences are what you edit.
Borderline is the result to expect halfway through a rewrite. It usually means one axis moved and the other did not: the vocabulary changed while the rhythm stayed flat, or the sentences loosened up while the stock phrases survived. Read which findings are still standing and you know which pass to run next.
The examples below were written for this page rather than copied out of a session. The edits are the part to take. In each one the move is the same: swap the abstract claim for the specific thing you actually know, and let sentence length follow the content instead of the template.
Look at what the rewrites cost. Each one commits to a claim the original avoided. That is the trade, and it is why the second version reads as though a person with an opinion wrote it.
Order matters more than effort here. Check first, read the findings, fix what you can fix by hand, then humanize the rest. Running the humanizer blind works, but you learn nothing about your own habits.
For anything longer than 2,000 words, split at your own section headings and run the parts separately, then reassemble. The word counter gives you the split points. Sections beat arbitrary chunks because each run sees a complete argument and the joins land where a reader expects a break anyway.
One line on coursework. Rewriting a draft you were permitted to generate is ordinary editing. Where AI is not permitted, that rule covers the draft however it gets edited afterwards. Read the policy that applies to your course.
A lot of people arrive here from the other direction. They wrote the thing, a detector disagreed, and somebody assumed a model produced it. Detectors score patterns, and patterns are shared. Liang et al. at Stanford HAI found in 2023 that 61% of TOEFL essays written by non-native English speakers were falsely flagged as AI across seven detectors.
If that is your position, the score is not your argument. Your version history is, along with your notes, your earlier drafts and a timestamped record of how the document was built. This site keeps a signed drafting record for exactly that, and there is a page on what to do once an accusation has been made. Both are free.
The same logic runs the other way. A clean score proves nothing either. Treat the number as a reading of the prose in front of it, never as a verdict on the person who typed it.
No. A detector scores how the writing reads, not which system produced it. The checker here reports a number from 0 to 100 and one of three verdicts, and it never names a model, because nothing in ordinary text identifies one.
There is no comparative measurement published here, and inventing one would be no use to you. What is testable is the draft in your hand. Paste it, read the findings, and treat that list as the work order.
Ten credits a day per network, free, with no account and no card. The checker costs one credit per run at any length. The humanizer costs one credit per fifty words, so a 400-word draft is eight credits.
12,000 characters, about 2,000 words. Longer pieces go through in sections: split at your headings, run each part, then reassemble. The checker needs 65 words minimum and the humanizer 25.
It rewrites every sentence, so read the output against your sources before you submit. Names, numbers and quoted material stay yours to confirm, the same as after any edit.
Nobody can promise you a number from a service they do not run. What you get here is this checker's reading, before and after, with the sentences behind it. The version that lasts is prose that sounds like you: varied sentence length, specific claims, no stock openers.