County promises to improve ‘report-a-problem’ tool, criticized for poor user experience 62%

By Scott McCaffrey21%

7/20/2026, 12:30:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Negativity Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 16.1% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 1,088 faulty-reasoning hits from 601 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.5% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,329 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.90% of the article peer group.

County staff say work is ongoing to make the government’s “report-a-problem” online portal more user-friendly and responsive. 
“I hear your frustration,” said Nicole Jackson, a business systems analyst for the county government, during the July 8 joint meeting of the county's Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC). 
Jackson provided an update on the online reporting tool, which in the past 18 months has fielded more than 74,000 submissions from the public. 
The vast majority of complaints and questions  more than 75%  are related to trash collection. 
Further down the list were concerns about matters under the purview of the two advisory committees. 
“There’s like 1,500 pothole issues and 1,500 other street issues. 
That’s not nothing  it’s a big issue,” BAC member Aaron Schuetz said. 
Schuetz voiced frustration with the number of steps needed to fill out the online form. 
“It’s just very complicated,” he said. 
Responsiveness to submissions also appears to be spotty, based on feedback at the meeting. 
BAC member Mike Hanna relayed his experiences making submissions when obstructions to bike lanes are found. 
“There’s no feedback at all from the system, and then eventually you get that [the ticket] is closed  but the bike lane is still blocked,” he said. 
“Did anybody even read [the submission], or did the software just close it?” 
BAC member Chris Slatt also has had problems with responsiveness. 
He pointed to submissions that resulted in a “lack of follow-up or status updates.” 
“I’ve got one sitting in a status of ‘on hold’ that’s two years old, and my ‘Hey, any update?’ 
comments have not elicited any updates,” Slatt said. 
County staff pointed to data suggesting that about 96% of submissions over the past 18 months have been closed, with 1% in progress, 1% on hold and 2% still open. 
Jackson said she is coordinating efforts across county departments to make the process more streamlined from start to finish. 
She said plans call for the creation of a “journey map” to “look at what information is provided on the front end that gives the user information on how to submit the property information, so it goes to the correct department or responsive person.” 
Having clear lines of responsibility among departments is key, she suggested. 
“We’re working on that,” Jackson said. 
“When you have those cross-department responsibilities, that’s when it gets a little unclear on who’s doing what.” 
David Patton, a county transportation planner participating in the meeting, said while the report-a-problem system has yielded positive results, many of the concerns expressed were warranted. 
“Some of these issues have been reoccurring a very long time. 
They are very frustrating for folks,” he said. 
Jackson said members of the county government’s public-outreach team will be working in coming months to develop common language so both users and county staff can communicate with each other more clearly. 
“We have acknowledged that that’s an issue,” she said. 
While voicing concerns, Slatt said he was heartened by the briefing. 
“I’m really glad this work is moving forward,” he said, adding: 
“Report-a-Problem is such an important piece between the government and community. 
It definitely needs improvements on both the front end and the back end  I look forward to seeing it improve over time.” 
The report-a-problem portal handles complaints related to transportation, trash collection, potholes, graffiti, streetlights and tree maintenance, along with more general questions about government. 
A separate portal handles concerns about snow removal, and there are specific reporting processes for abandoned vehicles, animal bites, noise/zoning/code enforcement, rodent control and towing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.5%Scott McCaffrey: 1.7%ARLnow: 1.5%Confirmation Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.5%ARLnow: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Scott McCaffrey: 2.6%ARLnow: 2.5%Availability Heuristic8.2%This article: 7.8%Scott McCaffrey: 1.6%ARLnow: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic7.8%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.1%ARLnow: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 1.2%ARLnow: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Scott McCaffrey: 2.3%ARLnow: 3.4%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.7%ARLnow: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.8%Scott McCaffrey: 1.2%ARLnow: 1.5%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 1.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect1.0%This article: 15.1%Scott McCaffrey: 4.9%ARLnow: 4.3%Optimism Bias15.1%This article: 6.3%Scott McCaffrey: 1.6%ARLnow: 1.8%Pessimism Bias6.3%This article: 14.8%Scott McCaffrey: 4.2%ARLnow: 4.2%Negativity Bias14.8%This article: 1.5%Scott McCaffrey: 0.9%ARLnow: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias1.5%This article: 5.0%Scott McCaffrey: 1.2%ARLnow: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 5.5%Scott McCaffrey: 0.1%ARLnow: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.9%ARLnow: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Scott McCaffrey: 2.3%ARLnow: 2.1%Halo Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Scott McCaffrey: 0.9%ARLnow: 1.2%Recency Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.1%ARLnow: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.1%ARLnow: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.8%ARLnow: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.3%Scott McCaffrey: 3.3%ARLnow: 3.1%Appeal to Authority8.3%This article: 7.5%Scott McCaffrey: 0.7%ARLnow: 0.8%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.3%ARLnow: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.2%ARLnow: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.3%Scott McCaffrey: 2.4%ARLnow: 2.2%Hasty Generalization2.3%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.2%ARLnow: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.6%ARLnow: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.8%Scott McCaffrey: 2.4%ARLnow: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion10.8%This article: 1.5%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.1%Begging the Question1.5%This article: 2.8%Scott McCaffrey: 1.4%ARLnow: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.8%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Scott McCaffrey: 0.8%ARLnow: 0.6%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.1%ARLnow: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.1%Scott McCaffrey: 1.9%ARLnow: 1.5%Anecdotal16.1%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.0%Scott McCaffrey: 1.7%ARLnow: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.7%Scott McCaffrey: 0.3%ARLnow: 0.2%Middle Ground5.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.2%ARLnow: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.2%ARLnow: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.0%ARLnow: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.5%Scott McCaffrey: 1.1%ARLnow: 1.4%Unattributed Quote5.5%This article: 6.7%Scott McCaffrey: 0.5%ARLnow: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection6.7%This article: 1.8%Scott McCaffrey: 1.1%ARLnow: 1.1%Biased Writer Voice1.8%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.1%ARLnow: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.3%ARLnow: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.4%ARLnow: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Scott McCaffrey: 0.3%ARLnow: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.0%

601 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers75%attributed speech153writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageNicole Jackson • 33 words • 100.0% coverageNicole Jackson • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Schuetz • 10 words • 100.0% coverageAaron Schuetz • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Schuetz • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Schuetz • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMike Hanna • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMike Hanna • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMike Hanna • 13 words • 0.0% coverageChris Slatt • 10 words • 0.0% coverageChris Slatt • 14 words • 0.0% coverageChris Slatt • 19 words • 100.0% coverageChris Slatt • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Jackson • 19 words • 100.0% coverageNicole Jackson • 44 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Jackson • 11 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Jackson • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Jackson • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Patton • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Patton • 11 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Patton • 8 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Jackson • 32 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Jackson • 9 words • 0.0% coverageChris Slatt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageChris Slatt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageChris Slatt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageChris Slatt • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nicole Jackson

100%flagged-word coverage
195 attributed words44% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote+16.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nicole Jackson: 16.9%16.9%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.4 ptsWriter: 11.1%Nicole Jackson: 9.7%9.7%Biased Writer Voice-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Nicole Jackson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.