Author summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video89 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Imogen Piper results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 35.4% saturation with 126 hits. Analysis detected 433 faulty-reasoning hits from 356 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 17.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠99% (106 of 6,382 authors). This Imogen Piper is worse (more manipulative) than 98.40% of the peer group.
Imogen Piper
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠99%Imogen Piper (selected)18%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 356
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

98% percentile
025507510098.4% percentile
17.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles356 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 17.7%17.7%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Author 13.2%13.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Author 13.2%13.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 35.4%35.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 18.8%18.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 5.6%5.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 17.7%17.7%

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 35.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 17.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Author 18.8%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Author 17.7%, sitewide 5.3%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 13.2%, sitewide 3.3%Unattributed Quote: Author 13.2%, sitewide 1.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 5.6%, sitewide 9.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos