Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,300 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chelsea Hotel results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Optimism Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 23.4% saturation with 1,513 hits. Analysis detected 5,054 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,453 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠38% (10,288 of 16,558 topics). This Chelsea Hotel is better (less manipulative) than 62.10% of the peer group.
Chelsea Hotel
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 6,453
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

38% percentile
025507510037.9% percentile
2.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles6.5K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 2.1%2.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 2.0%2.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 23.4%23.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 6.2%6.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.9%2.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.3%0.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.2%2.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.3%1.3%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.8%0.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 4.7%4.7%

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: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 26.9%Halo Effect: Topic 23.4%, sitewide 6.7%Negativity Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 6.2%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.7%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 6.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 5.6%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.6%Hindsight Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.3%, sitewide 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.5%Primacy Effect: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 0.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos