Topic summary
⁠61%4 analyzed articles/videos797 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Cleveland Guardians results contain 29 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 10.6% saturation with 554 hits. Analysis detected 3,520 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,237 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (12,863 of 24,545 topics). This Cleveland Guardians is better (less manipulative) than 52.40% of the peer group.
Cleveland Guardians

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

48% percentile
025507510047.6% percentile
2.3% BS Score4 analyzed articles5.2K 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 4.6%4.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.8%4.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.8%3.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.1%3.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.7%1.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.0%3.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.0%1.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.5%0.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.9%2.9%

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 4.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 11.1%Halo Effect: Topic 10.6%, sitewide 6.7%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.4%, sitewide 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.5%Recency Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.1%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos