Publication summary
34% 46 analyzed articles/videos 33,081 analyzed words
BS Summary: These The San Francisco Standard results contain 54 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Biased Writer Voice , and Hasty Generalization , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 7.5% saturation with 10,782 hits . Analysis detected 110,009 faulty-reasoning hits from 143,331 analyzed words across 46 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.4% and a BS Rank of 26% (284 of 383 publications). This The San Francisco Standard is better (less manipulative) than 74.10% of the peer group. The San Francisco Standard Publication details
Total words: 143,331
Article count: 46
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
26% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 25.9% percentile 1.4% BS Score46 analyzed articles143.3K 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 6.6% 6.6% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 7.5% 7.5% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 4.5% 4.5% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 3.5% 3.5% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 0.7% 0.7% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 3.4% 3.4% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 2.8% 2.8% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Publication 2.4% 2.4% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 1.3% 1.3% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Publication 1.1% 1.1% 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 6.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 7.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 4.5%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 3.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 3.4%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 5.3%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 2.8%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 4.1%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 2.4%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 5.3%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 3.4%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.3%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 1.9%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 2.1%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Publication 2.2%, sitewide 0.5% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst