regarding Dwell Time 11%

By Ole Eichhorn0%

9/30/2024, 11:29:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Straw Man, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 10.5% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 143 faulty-reasoning hits from 372 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.8% and a BS Rank of 11% (18,911 of 21,151 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.40% of the article peer group.

EOQ! 
Wow, can't even believe we are at the end of another third quarter. 
And you know what that means: Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years', bam bam bam bam. 
And poof another year in the books. 
Happens faster and faster every year. 
I've been ruminating on the "dwell time" of an online post. 
When you post something to a blog, on X, on Facebook, wherever your friends / followers / whomever see it for as long as it is your "current" post. 
As soon as you post something else, it gets pushed down the stack a bit, and people are less likely to see it. 
This is independent of the relative value or importance or length of the post. 
I could post a lengthy diatribe with incredible analysis, and then immediately post something trivial, and that diatribe will become history while the trivia might live on a long time. 
Frequent readers will know, I like my blog's "flight" feature, in which it displays what I've posted on this day each year past. 
If there's no post for this day, it backs up into recent days to show the most recently posted thing from that year. 
So items that had a big time gap after they were posted "last longer" in the daily flights, a most evocative illustration of dwell time in action. 
Some blogs (and some social media) have a "keep at top" feature, which artificially boosts dwell time. 
I used to do this myself, every once in a while, but haven't for a while. 
I have mentally played with the idea of recording inbound traffic (hits) for each post, and sorting archived posts by "max hits". 
That would make reader interest a part of dwell time, which would be good. 
Presumably if something was of interest to many or externally linked it likely would be of interest to the next reader. 
Or I could just keep posting whatever whenever and let the chips fall where they may. 
Heh. 
{Update: added digression: whoever wanted Google's .webp images? 
Why do they exist? 
Someone spent all that time inventing a new image format just so we all have to convert them back to JPEGs. 
What an incredible waste of time.} 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 9.1%Critical Section: 9.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.5%Critical Section: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.6%Critical Section: 1.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.3%Critical Section: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.5%Critical Section: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 4.7%Critical Section: 4.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 3.4%Critical Section: 3.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 5.3%Critical Section: 5.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.3%Critical Section: 0.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 7.5%Critical Section: 7.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.4%Critical Section: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.8%Critical Section: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Ole Eichhorn: 2.2%Critical Section: 2.2%In-Group Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.6%Critical Section: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 2.4%Critical Section: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 4.0%Critical Section: 4.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.3%Critical Section: 0.3%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.3%Critical Section: 0.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 5.8%Critical Section: 5.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 5.6%Ole Eichhorn: 2.3%Critical Section: 2.3%Straw Man5.6%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 2.5%Critical Section: 2.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.6%Critical Section: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.4%Critical Section: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Ole Eichhorn: 10.8%Critical Section: 10.8%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.6%Critical Section: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.6%Ole Eichhorn: 1.3%Critical Section: 1.3%Bandwagon5.6%This article: 1.6%Ole Eichhorn: 0.5%Critical Section: 0.5%Appeal to Emotion1.6%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 2.6%Critical Section: 2.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.8%Critical Section: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.4%Critical Section: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.2%Critical Section: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.5%Critical Section: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.2%Ole Eichhorn: 2.5%Critical Section: 2.5%Personal Incredulity3.2%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.5%Ole Eichhorn: 4.0%Critical Section: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice10.5%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 2.8%Critical Section: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 16.6%Critical Section: 16.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

372 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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