Publication summary
59% 67 analyzed articles/videos 58,599 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 5.7% saturation with 13,856 hits . Analysis detected 156,194 faulty-reasoning hits from 243,569 analyzed words across 67 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.2% and a BS Rank of 35% (361 of 548 publications). This The San Francisco Standard is better (less manipulative) than 65.80% of the peer group. The San Francisco Standard Publication details
Total words: 243,569
Article count: 67
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
34% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 34.2% percentile 1.2% BS Score67 analyzed articles243.6K 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 5.4% 5.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 5.7% 5.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 3.5% 3.5% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 2.5% 2.5% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 0.7% 0.7% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.9% 2.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 2.4% 2.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 4.1% 4.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Publication 2.2% 2.2% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Publication 3.3% 3.3% 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 5.4%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 5.7%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 3.5%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 2.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 4.1%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 2.4%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 2.2%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 4.9%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 2.7%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 1.0%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 1.5%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.9%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Publication 2.1%, sitewide 0.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst