Google Docs keeps a running record of every change to a document. It is three clicks away, it is available to anyone with edit access, and it is the single most revealing thing about how a piece of writing came to exist.
File, then Version history, then See version history, or Ctrl+Alt+Shift+H. The panel lists revisions by time and author, and highlights what each one changed. A paste shows up as a large block appearing at one timestamp; typing shows up as many small changes over time. Draftback replays the same underlying data keystroke by keystroke. What it cannot tell you is why, and it does not survive copying the text into a fresh document.
The keyboard shortcut is Ctrl+Alt+Shift+H on Windows and Linux, or Cmd+Option+Shift+H on a Mac. You need edit access to the document; view-only access does not include version history.
Tick Show changes at the bottom of the panel to highlight what each revision added or removed, colour-coded by author. That checkbox is what turns the list from a set of timestamps into something readable.
Google groups small edits into revisions rather than storing every keystroke as a separate entry, so the list is coarser than the underlying data. Clicking a revision shows the document as it stood at that moment, with that revision's changes highlighted.
Older revisions get consolidated over time, so a document from months ago shows less granularity than one from this week. That is a storage decision by Google, not something you control.
A paste lands in edit history as one block. copypaster types whatever you copied as real keystrokes with human rhythm, so it arrives gradually, the way typing does. It changes how text arrives, not what a checker reads.
Draftback is a browser extension that reads the same revision data Google already stores and plays it back as a film of the document being written, with a graph of activity over time.
It is more legible than the built-in panel rather than more powerful. It cannot see anything Google has not kept, and it needs the same edit access. The reason it feels more revealing is that a replay makes a sudden thousand-word appearance obvious in a way a list of timestamps does not.
That last set of limits is worth understanding from both sides. Version history is strong evidence of how text arrived in that document, and weak evidence of almost everything else.
The practical value is the shape, not the individual revision. A document that grew over several sittings, with deletions and rewrites, looks different from one that appeared in three large blocks. Neither is proof of anything on its own, and a student who drafted in Word and pasted their own finished work produces exactly the second pattern.
It is a conversation starter rather than a verdict, and it is worth saying that plainly on a site that sells a tool which changes the pattern.
Open File, then Version history, then See version history, or press Ctrl+Alt+Shift+H. The panel lists revisions by date and author, and ticking Show changes highlights what each one changed.
Usually yes. A paste appears as one revision in which a large amount of text exists that did not exist moments before. Typing appears as many smaller changes spread over time.
Yes. View-only access does not include version history. Anyone with edit access to the document can open it.
No. Making a copy, or selecting all and pasting into a new document, produces a file whose history starts at that moment. The original history stays with the original file.
Nothing extra. It reads the same revision data Google already stores and replays it as a film with an activity graph, which is easier to read than a list of timestamps.
No. It shows how text arrived in that document. A student who drafted in Word and pasted their own finished work produces the same pattern as anyone else pasting. It is a conversation starter, not a verdict.
copypaster types your clipboard into a document as real keystrokes, so text arrives gradually rather than as one block. Free trial, 5 pastes, no credit card. It shapes edit history and nothing else: not similarity scores, not AI detection.
Download copypaster