Publication summary
39% 24 analyzed articles/videos 11,666 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Rough Draft Atlanta results contain 48 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Appeal to Emotion , with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 11.2% saturation with 5,839 hits . Analysis detected 30,182 faulty-reasoning hits from 51,927 analyzed words across 24 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.2% and a BS Rank of 14% (354 of 410 publications). This Rough Draft Atlanta is better (less manipulative) than 86.30% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 51,927
Article count: 24
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
14% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 13.7% percentile 1.2% BS Score24 analyzed articles51.9K 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% Publication 3.3% 3.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 4.2% 4.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 3.3% 3.3% Attempt to Sell a Product… Sitewide 0.5% Publication 11.2% 11.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 2.3% 2.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.0% 2.0% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 0.7% 0.7% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 1.5% 1.5% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 2.9% 2.9% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Publication 2.5% 2.5% 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: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 4.2%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 15.9% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Publication 11.2%, sitewide 0.5% Appeal to Authority: Publication 2.3%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 1.5%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 2.5%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 3.1%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 2.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 0.9%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.1%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst