Author summary
⁠23%1 analyzed article/video640 analyzed words
BS Summary: These William Williams results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Halo Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 7.8% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 313 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,280 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (2,128 of 8,783 authors). This William Williams is worse (more manipulative) than 75.80% of the peer group.
William Williams
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Hannah Martin1%
⁠0%Paul DeMark1%
⁠0%Emma Sedlak1%
⁠0%Michael Fox1%
⁠0%San Antonio Report Staff1%
⁠76%William Williams (selected)4%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 1,280
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

76% percentile
025507510075.8% percentile
3.5% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.3K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 6.8%6.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 3.2%3.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 1.7%1.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 0.9%0.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 3.2%3.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 7.8%7.8%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Author 0.9%0.9%

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 6.8%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Author 7.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 1.7%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 0.9%, sitewide 8.1%Halo Effect: Author 3.2%, sitewide 6.7%Anchoring Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 4.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos