Keyword summary
0% 5 analyzed articles/videos 2,388 analyzed words
BS Summary: These New York Giants results contain 45 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Hasty Generalization , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 19.2% saturation with 1,603 hits . Analysis detected 11,313 faulty-reasoning hits from 8,358 analyzed words across 5 articles, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of 53% (16,145 of 34,324 keywords). This New York Giants is worse (more manipulative) than 53.00% of the peer group. New York Giants
Keyword details
Total words: 8,358
Article count: 5
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed keywords
53% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 53.0% percentile 3.0% BS Score5 analyzed articles8.4K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Keyword 10.7% 10.7% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Keyword 19.2% 19.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Keyword 7.3% 7.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Keyword 10.9% 10.9% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Keyword 3.5% 3.5% Unattributed Quote Sitewide 1.1% Keyword 4.5% 4.5% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Keyword 4.1% 4.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Keyword 3.4% 3.4% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Keyword 1.5% 1.5% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Keyword 5.0% 5.0% 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 10.7%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Keyword 10.9%, sitewide 19.2% Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 19.2%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 7.3%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Keyword 3.5%, sitewide 11.1% Hasty Generalization: Keyword 10.0%, sitewide 8.1% Availability Heuristic: Keyword 7.0%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Keyword 5.0%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Keyword 4.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Keyword 5.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Keyword 3.4%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Keyword 3.4%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 3.5%, sitewide 4.6% Unattributed Quote: Keyword 4.5%, sitewide 1.1% Anchoring Bias: Keyword 1.5%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 3.7% Recency Bias: Keyword 3.4%, sitewide 2.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Ad Hominem: Keyword 2.7%, sitewide 2.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 2.6%, sitewide 0.8% Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Keyword rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst