Author summary
0%2 analyzed articles/videos1,545 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Danielle Venton results contain 37 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Halo Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 19.2% saturation with 688 hits. Analysis detected 5,529 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,578 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 4.2% and a BS Rank of 77% (1,469 of 6,134 authors). This Danielle Venton is worse (more manipulative) than 76.10% of the peer group.
Danielle Venton
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Vivek Chibber1%
0%Sneha Dey1%
0%Ideastream Public Media1%
0%Megan Fan Munce1%
1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
77%Danielle Venton (selected)5%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 3,578
Article count: 2
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

76% percentile
025507510076.1% percentile
4.2% BS Score2 analyzed articles3.6K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 7.0%7.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 16.3%16.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 2.3%2.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 4.7%4.7%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Author 6.8%6.8%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 11.3%11.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 1.2%1.2%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 12.0%12.0%Appeal to NatureSitewide 0.2%Author 3.8%3.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 19.2%19.2%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Framing Effect: Author 16.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 7.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 19.2%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Author 12.0%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Author 11.3%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Author 4.7%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 2.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 8.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 7.7%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Author 7.7%, sitewide 6.0%In-Group Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 6.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 6.8%, sitewide 0.5%Anecdotal: Author 3.0%, sitewide 5.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 4.8%, sitewide 2.0%Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 4.6%False Dilemma: Author 3.9%, sitewide 1.5%Pessimism Bias: Author 3.8%, sitewide 1.9%Appeal to Nature: Author 3.8%, sitewide 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 3.8%, sitewide 1.9%Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 3.7%Straw Man: Author 3.5%, sitewide 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.8%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos