Author summary
⁠12%1 analyzed article/video311 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nicole Bomar results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Personal Incredulity, Framing Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 5.5% saturation with 34 hits. Analysis detected 146 faulty-reasoning hits from 622 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (1,288 of 9,471 authors). This Nicole Bomar is worse (more manipulative) than 86.40% of the peer group.
Nicole Bomar
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Hannah Martin1%
⁠0%Paul DeMark1%
⁠0%Emma Sedlak1%
⁠0%Michael Fox1%
⁠0%San Antonio Report Staff1%
⁠87%Nicole Bomar (selected)5%
⁠100%Bannon's WarRoom39%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 622
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

86% percentile
025507510086.4% percentile
4.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles622 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 5.3%5.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 4.8%4.8%Personal IncredulitySitewide 0.2%Author 5.5%5.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 5.5%5.5%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Author 2.4%2.4%

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: Author 5.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 4.8%, sitewide 19.2%Availability Heuristic: Author 5.5%, sitewide 9.1%Personal Incredulity: Author 5.5%, sitewide 0.2%Status Quo Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos