The Verge⁠55%

Microsoft tests Windows Search without all the ads and fluff ⁠50%

By Emma Roth⁠43%

7/13/2026, 9:53:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Burden of Proof, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 51.1% saturation with 134 hits. Analysis detected 957 faulty-reasoning hits from 262 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (10,623 of 21,099 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.30% of the article peer group.

Microsoft is testing a cleaner version of the Windows 11 search menu that strips it of recommended content and ads. 
In a blog post on Monday, Microsoft announced that it’s rolling out the decluttered Search Box to Windows Insiders in the Experimental channel as the company looks to regain trust with users and fix Windows. 
One of the biggest changes is a revamped search homescreen that displays only your recent searches. 
Currently, when you open the search menu, it shows your recent searches alongside several distracting tiles on the right pane, containing things like the image of the day, daily quizzes, trending searches, and game recommendations. 
Microsoft is cleaning up web results, too, as the search menu will surface the “most relevant answer” first, rather than showing “related products and promotions.” 
Aside from doing some decluttering, Microsoft is testing other notable improvements to its search menu. 
It will more clearly show metadata, along with a preview of the file in the pane on the right side of the search menu, making it easier to figure out where the result came from. 
The Windows 11 search system will also prioritize results from your local files, apps, and settings, which will “more reliably appear” ahead of web and Microsoft Store recommendations. 
Testers can now turn off web and Store recommendations entirely from the Settings menu. 
There are a few quality-of-life updates, too, as Microsoft says the search system it’s piloting can better handle typos, extra letters, and partial words, while offering some performance improvements. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Emma Roth: 4.7%The Verge: 3.6%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 2.2%The Verge: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Emma Roth: 4.0%The Verge: 3.7%Availability Heuristic13.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Emma Roth: 1.5%The Verge: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias13.4%This article: 27.1%Emma Roth: 11.4%The Verge: 6.0%Framing Effect27.1%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.4%The Verge: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.3%Emma Roth: 1.4%The Verge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.4%The Verge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 40.8%Emma Roth: 7.3%The Verge: 4.0%Optimism Bias40.8%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.9%The Verge: 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.4%Emma Roth: 8.0%The Verge: 9.4%Negativity Bias34.4%This article: 13.4%Emma Roth: 3.8%The Verge: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.0%The Verge: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.4%The Verge: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.6%The Verge: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Emma Roth: 3.0%The Verge: 2.9%Halo Effect9.5%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 2.6%The Verge: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Emma Roth: 1.2%The Verge: 0.4%Primacy Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.6%The Verge: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 35.1%Emma Roth: 8.4%The Verge: 4.0%Appeal to Authority35.1%This article: 9.5%Emma Roth: 0.6%The Verge: 1.6%False Dilemma9.5%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.4%The Verge: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.8%Emma Roth: 3.4%The Verge: 6.7%Hasty Generalization11.8%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.9%The Verge: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.4%The Verge: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.5%The Verge: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.4%Emma Roth: 4.5%The Verge: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 35.1%Emma Roth: 3.3%The Verge: 0.8%Burden of Proof35.1%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 2.0%The Verge: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.4%Emma Roth: 4.3%The Verge: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.8%The Verge: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 5.6%The Verge: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 2.2%The Verge: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 51.1%Emma Roth: 9.3%The Verge: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice51.1%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 1.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 26.7%Emma Roth: 4.4%The Verge: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…26.7%

262 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker75%attributed speech65writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Microsoft • 10 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 25 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 15 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMicrosoft • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMicrosoft • 29 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Microsoft

100%flagged-word coverage
197 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.6 ptsWriter: 53.8%Microsoft: 50.3%50.3%Attempt to Sell a Product +35.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Microsoft: 35.5%35.5%

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.