Keyword summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Canberra results contain 28 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Hasty Generalization, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 19.3% saturation with 323 hits. Analysis detected 1,656 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,677 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 36,962 keywords). This Canberra is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Canberra
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
⁠0%Texas Supreme Court1%
⁠0%Tropic Care Of Florida1%
⁠0%Running Back1%
⁠0%Javian Hawkins1%
⁠0%Atlanta Falcons1%
⁠100%Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%Mike Lewis60%
⁠100%Joni Balter60%
⁠100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
⁠0%Canberra (selected)0%
Keyword details
Total words: 1,677
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.7K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

KeywordSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Keyword 1.0%1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Keyword 19.3%19.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 2.6%2.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 6.3%6.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 0.5%0.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Keyword 14.3%14.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Keyword 0.8%0.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 5.6%5.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Keyword 0.5%0.5%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Keyword 9.7%9.7%

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: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 26.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Keyword 19.3%, sitewide 0.5%Negativity Bias: Keyword 6.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 2.6%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Keyword 14.3%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 5.6%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 9.7%, sitewide 5.3%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 8.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 6.0%Ad Hominem: Keyword 4.3%, sitewide 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 4.1%, sitewide 3.3%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 3.0%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 3.1%, sitewide 3.7%Recency Bias: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Sunk Cost Effect: Keyword 2.4%, sitewide 0.3%Bandwagon: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Keyword 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%Hindsight Bias: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 1.4%Begging the Question: Keyword 0.2%, sitewide 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Keyword 1.6%, sitewide 0.0%Unattributed Quote: Keyword 1.6%, sitewide 1.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos