Paste anything you encountered online and see if it’s worth your time. The tool figures out what you’re looking at and responds accordingly: whether it’s a comment that’s an attention trap, a claim worth fact-checking, or something in between.
💬Comment Analyzer helps you decide whether an online comment deserves a reply or is just an attention trap.
🔍Credibility Check helps you avoid falling down rabbit holes by quickly checking whether a source or claim is worth your time before you engage with it.
Optional. Helps the tool calibrate its analysis.
This tool won’t tell you if something is true or false. It helps you figure that out yourself using lateral reading, the same skill professional fact-checkers use.
Analyzing...
💬 Comment analysis
⌛
This tool is meant to build your judgment over time, not replace it.
Good instinct pausing before reacting. That’s already the hardest part. Use this verdict to inform your judgment, not replace it.
🔍 Credibility check
🔍Your Fact-Checking Plan
Reviewing what you found...
You now have what you need to evaluate this yourself.
Patterns bad-faith commenters use to waste your time. Recognizing them is the first step to not falling for them.
Distraction & Deflection
Shifting focus away from the argument. Whataboutism, loaded questions, funding insinuations, conspiracy framing.
Goal: make you chase side issues instead of addressing the real point.
Overwhelm Tactics
Burying you in demands so you can’t respond to everything. Gish Gallop, Sea Lioning.
Goal: exhaust you so responding looks like conceding defeat.
Distortion Tactics
Misrepresenting your position or the evidence to make it easier to attack. Strawman, false equivalence, cherry picking.
Goal: argue against a version of you that is easier to beat.
Personal Attacks
Targeting you instead of your argument. Ad hominem, poisoning the well, projection, credentials attacks.
Goal: signal to onlookers that you are not worth listening to.
Pure Provocation
Seeking a negative reaction with no real argument underneath. Unprovoked aggression, inflammatory statements, content designed to shock.
Goal: destabilize you. Engaging delivers exactly what they came for.
How professional fact-checkers evaluate sources. The key is leaving the page immediately and checking what others say about it, not trying to evaluate it from within.
Check the source, not the content
Before reading the article, search for what others say about the outlet or author. Look at who they are, not what they say about themselves.
Cross-check the claim
Search the core claim in a new tab. If only fringe sites cover it and mainstream outlets don’t, that’s a signal worth noticing.
Use fact-checking sites
Sites like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org can verify specific claims. Cross-checking across multiple fact-checkers improves accuracy.
Trace back to the original
Many misleading claims are real quotes or data taken out of context. Find the original source and see if the claim holds up in full context.
Scan before you click
Before opening any search result, scan the whole results page first. Look at what kinds of sources appear and what the snippets say. Then choose deliberately.
Your Session on IgnoreMore
Analyze a comment or check a claim to start tracking your session.
Estimates grounded in published research on rumination and online attention.
Share Your Feedback
How did you like the Critical Ignoring Companion?
Your feedback directly influences how this tool evolves. It takes about 3 minutes.
The thumbs up/down buttons send only three data points to my Google Sheet: which mode was used, the verdict given, and whether you found it helpful. Nothing else. No inputs, no identifying information.