Nominate your invertebrate of the year ⁠75%

By Patrick Barkham⁠0% Guardian community team⁠0%

7/1/2026, 4:07:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 57.3% saturation with 296 hits. Analysis detected 1,888 faulty-reasoning hits from 517 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (5,652 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.20% of the article peer group.

Step aside World Cup heroes, there’s a bigger global competition in town. 
The whistle has been blown to launch the third Invertebrate of the Year contest. 
We want you to nominate your favourite spineless creature for the hugely popular annual Guardian jamboree which celebrates the wonder and importance of the world’s invertebrates. 
Are you enraptured by earthworms? 
Do you have a crush on cephalopods? 
Are you barmy about beetles? 
Blown away by butterflies? 
Mad for moths? 
If you’re not, don’t worry: there are at least 1.3 million invertebrate species to choose from. 
How about the wētāpunga, a giant flightless, jumpless grasshopper? 
Or the water-walking fen raft spider? 
Or the tongue-biting louse, a tiny crustacean that burrows into a fish’s gills and clings to its tongue, eating what the fish eats and sharing enough so the fish stays alive – for years? 
We, creatures with spines, are a tiny minority in the animal world. 
Humans, dogs, cows, birds, fish – we may think we’re the planetary rulers but we’re not. 
We make up barely 5% of animal life on Earth. 
Without the unseen labours of our unheralded neighbours – the snails, spiders, sponges, corals, bivalves, wasps and crabs – the grandiose edifice that is human civilisation would crumble. 
These guys are our pollinators, soil-makers, fertility-bringers, water-cleaners, predator and plague-controllers. 
A few invertebrates may still wreak havoc in the human world but as the legendary biologist E. 
O. 
Wilson put it: “The truth is that we need invertebrates but they don’t need us.” 
So who will you nominate? 
There are just two rules. 
One is that our noble previous winners cannot be put to the popular vote again. 
Last year’s Invertebrate of the Year was a triumph for <em>Milnesium tardigradum</em>, a microscopic multisegmented animal that resembles a piglet wrapped in an enormous duvet. 
In 2024, the first ever winner of the Invertebrate of the Year contest was the common earthworm, which won a landslide 38% of the popular vote. 
The second rule is that while you may consider some of our leading politicians to be a spineless weirdo, please resist the temptation to nominate them. 
Thankfully, no humans have the superpowers of the all-female common rotifer, who can survive being frozen for thousands of years, or the dark-edged bee fly, a twerking trickster whose babies devour the offspring of solitary bees. 
So let’s set aside anthropocentric thinking and nominate a new leader. 
Surely our world would be better run by an emperor dragonfly or a monarch butterfly? 
Would we even take the horrid king assassin bug over our current ship of (human) fools? 
We can make it happen. 
Nominate your Invertebrate of the Year now! 
You have until midnight on Monday 13 July to submit your response. 
On August 3 we will begin to unveil the shortlist of ten wonderful creatures; then everyone will have the opportunity to vote, campaign, lobby and persuade their friends to back their favourite. 
After scrupulous and careful counting by the worker bees of the Guardian, the Invertebrate of the Year 2026 will be revealed on August 17. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.8%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias1.0%This article: 5.0%Patrick Barkham: 2.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias5.0%This article: 5.4%Patrick Barkham: 1.7%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 4.1%Patrick Barkham: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias1.0%This article: 11.0%Patrick Barkham: 6.5%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect11.0%This article: 14.7%Patrick Barkham: 1.3%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion14.7%This article: 1.2%Patrick Barkham: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.7%Patrick Barkham: 8.8%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias9.7%This article: 7.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.6%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 35.8%Patrick Barkham: 4.3%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias35.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Patrick Barkham: 3.7%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect23.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Patrick Barkham: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Patrick Barkham: 1.9%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem5.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.6%Patrick Barkham: 4.3%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority12.6%This article: 10.1%Patrick Barkham: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma10.1%This article: 5.4%Patrick Barkham: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope5.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.4%Patrick Barkham: 4.6%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization12.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 13.5%Patrick Barkham: 4.6%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon13.5%This article: 22.6%Patrick Barkham: 8.6%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion22.6%This article: 2.1%Patrick Barkham: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question2.1%This article: 5.4%Patrick Barkham: 0.5%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.4%This article: 5.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque5.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.1%Patrick Barkham: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.1%This article: 2.1%Patrick Barkham: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division2.1%This article: 11.4%Patrick Barkham: 1.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal11.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%Patrick Barkham: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Patrick Barkham: 0.3%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote2.9%This article: 3.9%Patrick Barkham: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 57.3%Patrick Barkham: 11.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice57.3%This article: 24.0%Patrick Barkham: 8.4%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination24.0%This article: 5.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 30.6%Patrick Barkham: 3.2%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…30.6%

517 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.9%attributed speech502writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageE. O. Wilson • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

E. O. Wilson

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%E. O. Wilson: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+99.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%E. O. Wilson: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-59.0 ptsWriter: 59.0%E. O. Wilson: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -31.5 ptsWriter: 31.5%E. O. Wilson: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-24.7 ptsWriter: 24.7%E. O. Wilson: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%E. O. Wilson: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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