Keyword summary
78% 8 analyzed articles/videos 4,858 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Queen Camilla results contain 49 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect , Negativity Bias , and Framing Effect , with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 2,443 hits . Analysis detected 24,027 faulty-reasoning hits from 24,740 analyzed words across 8 articles, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of 24% (28,601 of 37,536 keywords). This Queen Camilla is better (less manipulative) than 76.20% of the peer group. Queen Camilla
Keyword details
Total words: 24,740
Article count: 8
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed keywords
24% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 23.8% percentile 2.0% BS Score8 analyzed articles24.7K 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 7.7% 7.7% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Keyword 8.0% 8.0% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Keyword 3.8% 3.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Keyword 2.4% 2.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Keyword 9.9% 9.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Keyword 3.0% 3.0% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Keyword 1.4% 1.4% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Keyword 0.7% 0.7% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Keyword 2.1% 2.1% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias Sitewide 3.1% Keyword 0.5% 0.5% 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 7.7%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Keyword 8.0%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 9.9%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Keyword 3.8%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Keyword 2.4%, sitewide 9.1% Halo Effect: Keyword 8.8%, sitewide 6.7% Hasty Generalization: Keyword 5.7%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Keyword 3.0%, sitewide 7.5% Optimism Bias: Keyword 7.3%, sitewide 6.0% In-Group Bias: Keyword 4.7%, sitewide 6.9% Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Keyword 1.4%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 3.6%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 2.4%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 3.1% Ad Hominem: Keyword 2.9%, sitewide 2.2% Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 2.5% Unattributed Quote: Keyword 2.4%, sitewide 1.1% Bandwagon: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Keyword rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst