Job: @docmerita

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise/approval and produce visible engagement/social proof; low informational value about user intent or authenticity." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single short emoji comment (👏👏👏). This type of comment is common, low-effort, and provides limited signal about followers or campaign effectiveness. It is plausibly genuine (a quick supportive reaction), but such comments are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or users leaving generic positive feedback, so authenticity is uncertain. Given the minimal data, I assign a moderate fakeness risk (40/100) with low confidence (30/100). For an advertising decision, this single comment is insufficient: evaluate total comment volume and diversity, commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, activity), engagement rate relative to follower count, comment timestamps (burst patterns), and presence of repetitive/generic replies. Based on just this comment, overall suitability for advertising is moderate but highly uncertain (overall score 55/100, confidence 25/100). Further sample of comments and follower audits are recommended before purchase." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 0, "fakeness_confidence": 0, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 0, "comment_types": [], "interpretation": "Нет данных для анализа — вы не прислали текст комментариев. Пожалуйста, вставьте комментарии (или ссылку на пост + сведения о времени публикации/охвате), либо укажите выборку комментариев. После получения комментариев я: 1) классифицирую типы (реакции, вопросы, спам/промо, боты, шаблонные лайк-боты, ответы от автора и т.д.), 2) оценю цели комментариев (вовлечение, продвижение, флейм, поддержка, запросы), 3) выставлю оценку «фейновости» (0–100) с указанием уверенности и 4) дам итоговую рекомендацию по целесообразности покупки рекламы." }

Text: Es ist lange schon bewiesen dass mann bei Krebs Vitamin D braucht. Hautkrebs bekommt mann bei Vitamin D mangel. Viele Ärzte sind gegen diese Sonnenkremen.... Solange dein Körper nicht zu lange in der Sonne ist, ist alles okay 🌞

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 85, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "health_misinformation / opinion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressing a personal health claim and discouraging sunscreen use; attempting to persuade or reassure other readers (informal medical advice)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment contains clear medical misinformation (claims that vitamin D deficiency causes skin cancer, that vitamin D prevents cancer, and that many doctors are against sunscreens). Language and style suggest an organic individual opinion rather than obvious bot/spam (casual tone, spelling inconsistencies). For an influencer ad-buy decision this is a warning sign: the audience may include users skeptical of mainstream medical advice and receptive to health-related misinformation, which could create reputational risk for brands in sun care, skincare, or medical sectors. Because this analysis is based on one comment only, conclusions are tentative—recommend auditing a larger sample of comments, engagement authenticity, and audience sentiment before deciding. If the campaign involves products where medical accuracy and trust matter, proceed with caution or avoid without further vetting." }

Text: verständlich.. dann könntest du dich aber an den gang setzen (für dich besser und für andere auch die am fenster gerne rausschauen)

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "constructive/critical suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Give behavioral feedback and propose an alternative action (sit in the aisle); expresses mild criticism and engages directly with the poster; not promotional." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment translation: \"understandable.. then you could sit in the aisle (better for you and for others who like to look out the window)\". Tone is mildly critical/suggestive, context-specific and conversational in German. Linguistic features (natural phrasing, context reference, absence of generic praise or promotional language, no emojis or sales links) indicate the comment is likely genuine rather than bot-generated or paid. Because there is only one comment provided, this sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience authenticity or sentiment. For influencer advertising feasibility: this single authentic-looking comment is a weak positive signal (real engagement exists) but not sufficient evidence of broad, positive, brand-aligned engagement. Recommend collecting a larger random sample of comments (e.g., 50–200), measuring engagement rate, commenter follower quality, repetition of generic comments, and sentiment distribution before making a buy decision." }

Text: Reicht der Sonnenschutz für einen 8 Stunden Flug?!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product question / genuine inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about product performance (sunscreen longevity on an 8‑hour flight) — seeking usage information and reassurance, potentially indicating purchase consideration." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a direct, specific question about product efficacy and reads as a genuine user inquiry rather than generic praise or spam. This type of engagement is valuable for advertisers because it shows audience interest and a real purchasing consideration. However, analysis is extremely limited because only one comment was provided; the low fakeness score reflects the specific, contextual nature of the question, but the overall assessment (60/100) is moderate due to the tiny sample size. For a robust advertising decision, review a larger set of comments for variety (questions, complaints, praise), response rate and quality from the influencer, engagement rate relative to follower count, and follower authenticity metrics." }

Text: Also im Cockpit gibt es wohl besondere Folien, die davor schützen sollen

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Informational / technical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide an informational detail about protective films in the cockpit — likely sharing knowledge or answering a concern, not promotional." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a neutral, specific statement in German about cockpit protective films. Its tone and content look like a genuine user contribution (short, topical, not generic praise or a call-to-action). There are no obvious bot/spam markers (repetitive phrasing, emojis-only, links, off-topic). Given only one comment, the sample size is too small to judge overall comment authenticity or community engagement reliably. For influencer ad-purchase decisions this single, plausible genuine comment is insufficient evidence of strong organic engagement or an engaged, relevant audience. Recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, like/dislike counts, follower quality metrics, and checks for repetitive/generic comments before making a buying decision." }

Text: Gute Info, aber ich lasse das Fenster trotzdem oben. Liebe die Aussicht

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/opinion", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses a personal preference and engages with post content (non-promotional, conversational)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is context-specific and personal (mentions leaving the window up and liking the view), which is characteristic of a genuine human responder rather than a generic bot or paid promo. It provides mild positive engagement but is not promotional or instructive for advertisers. Because this analysis is based on only one comment, confidence in broader conclusions is limited — authenticity appears high for this comment (low fakeness), but the sample size is too small to judge overall audience quality or engagement patterns for ad-buying decisions. Recommend collecting more comments, measuring comment diversity, repetition, timing, account profiles, and overall engagement rate before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: Ich überlege gerade das Material aus dem Flugzeugfenster bestehen ist ja Acrylglas in den meisten fällen. Soweit ich weiß absorbiert dies bis 300nm Wellenlänge, 380nm ist der volle UV-Schutz. Bedeutet es müsste ein Teilschutz vorhanden sein auch wenn er nicht bei 100% liegt oder ?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 90, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Technical question / topical engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks clarification about material properties and UV protection (informational engagement). Indicates genuine curiosity and topical knowledge rather than promotion or generic praise." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a specific, technical question about airplane window material and UV absorption (in German). Its content and phrasing (nuanced wavelength numbers, tentative language) strongly suggest a real person asking to clarify or discuss a detail — low likelihood of being fake or a bot. For influencer-advertising feasibility this is a positive signal: the audience (or at least this commenter) engages substantively and cares about technical accuracy, which is valuable for advertisers needing informed, attentive followers. Caveats: this assessment is based on one comment only — quantity, diversity, commenter account quality, timing, and the rest of the comment thread are unknown. I recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), likes per post, and comment timestamps to confirm overall engagement authenticity before making a buy decision." }

Text: Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical / skeptical (organic)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses annoyance or skepticism about the use of the phrase 'well aging' — likely a genuine follower pushing back on marketing language rather than promoting or spamming." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘') is short, context-aware and linguistically natural in German; it reads as an organic, negative reaction to a marketing term. Fakeness is low (≈10/100) with fairly high confidence because the phrasing shows local language use and a critical tone that bots or paid commenters rarely adopt in this way. For advertising feasibility this is moderately positive (overall score ~55/100) because authentic critical comments indicate real audience engagement, but the negative/skeptical sentiment signals the audience may be sensitive to buzzwords or overt marketing claims. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments and engagement metrics (like/reply ratios, follower quality, comment timestamps) before committing to purchase; if the brand message relies on buzzword-heavy claims, adjust creative to avoid triggering this skeptical segment." }

Text: Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Clarification", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks an explanation or expresses confusion about the creator's choice (asks why an aisle seat wasn't booked). Appears to be genuine audience engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?\" (\"But why then not book an aisle seat?\"). This is a direct, context-specific question that reads like authentic engagement (curiosity/critique) rather than a generic promotional or bot comment. Given the single-sample limit, the low fakeness score reflects that the comment's content and form are consistent with a real user interaction. However, this is an extremely small sample and cannot reliably indicate overall comment authenticity or community quality. For an advertising purchase decision, this single genuine-seeming comment is a modest positive signal (shows at least some real audience interaction), but you should analyze a larger set of comments and account-level signals (comment diversity, timing patterns, commenter account ages/follower counts, repeated phrasing, like-to-comment ratios, replies) before finalizing buy-in. Recommended next steps: collect a larger comment sample (50–200), inspect commenter profiles for signs of real users, and check engagement velocity and reply behavior to estimate organic reach and audience relevance." }

Text: Was hat das eine mit dem anderen zu tun hä?😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "confused/critical question", "count": 1, "purpose": "express confusion or mild criticism; request clarification/engage the poster" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Was hat das eine mit dem anderen zu tun hä?😂') reads as an organic reaction: a brief critical/questioning engagement with a laughing emoji, typical of a real follower asking for clarification or highlighting perceived irrelevance. It is not generic praise or a promotional/bot-like message, so fakeness is low. However, this is only one comment — the sample is far too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For an advertising feasibility decision, request a larger dataset: number of comments, comment diversity, repetition of phrases, comment timestamps, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratios, and presence of generic/one-word praise or identical comments. These additional checks (pattern detection, profile inspection, timing analysis) will materially increase confidence in a final assessment." }

Text: Oha ich werd braun wenn ich fliege???😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "enthusiastic/genuine praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses admiration/excitement for the post and signals positive sentiment toward the influencer/content" }, { "type": "emoji-heavy casual engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "uses emojis to amplify emotion; low informational content but contributes to visible engagement metrics" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“Oha ich werd braun wenn ich fliege???😍😍”) reads like an informal, enthusiastic reaction in German. It contains colloquial phrasing, punctuation and emojis, which are typical of genuine follower responses and show positive sentiment and curiosity (possibly a playful remark). There are no obvious bot/spam indicators (no links, generic praise patterns, irrelevant hashtags or repeated text). Given only one comment, the sample size is very small, so fakeness assessment is tentative. Low fakeness score reflects natural language and personalized tone; however, overall confidence is moderate because a single comment cannot represent the whole audience. For advertising feasibility: this comment is a positive signal (engaged follower), but you should evaluate comment volume, commenter account authenticity (profile history, follower counts), diversity of commenters, timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios across multiple posts to make a reliable buy decision." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement / low-effort engagement; indicates attention but provides no substantive endorsement or feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment present consisting of a single laughing emoji. This is low-information engagement: it shows the post attracted attention but does not indicate meaningful endorsement, intent to purchase, or audience quality. A lone emoji comment can be organic (genuine follower reaction) or part of low-effort engagement (pods/bots); with this single data point the risk of misclassification is high. Because the sample is too small, confidence is limited. For advertising decisions, this comment pattern is insufficient evidence of a responsive, authentic audience. Recommended next steps: analyze multiple recent posts for comment diversity and depth, check follower-to-engagement ratios, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts vs. bot-like signs, examine timing/distribution of comments, and compare likes vs. comments. Without that additional data, I would not rely on this comment set alone to approve an ad buy." }

Text: Ein Flug ohne Fenster ist für mich kein richtiger Flug... Das schönste an so einem Flug ist diese traumhafte Aussicht auf die Welt von oben. Hoffentlich macht die das nicht auch bei ihren Kindern, wenn die mal aus dem Fenster schauen möchten 🙈. Und jaaa... Sie ist Ärztin und es mag ja vielleicht etwas für dran sein. Aber das gesamte Leben ist ein Risiko. Wenn man sich keinerlei Risiken mehr aussetzen möchte, dann muss man sich ein Leben lang im Keller verbarrikadieren und darf keinen Spaß und Freude mehr empfinden. Diese Einstellung "mir könnte dies und das passieren" nervt einfach nur... Leben und leben lassen.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "opinion/critique", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express personal preference and disagreement, voice an emotional reaction, and provoke debate (includes mild moral judgment and concern about possible behavior toward children)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a coherent, multi-sentence, context-specific reaction in German that expresses personal dislike for 'a flight without windows' and criticizes an implied risk-averse stance (referring to 'she is a doctor'). Linguistic fluency, details, and the use of an emoji (🙈) make it appear organic rather than templated or bot-like. Purpose is to state opinion and push back against perceived over-cautious behavior; it also contains mildly provocative language ('nervt einfach nur') which suggests engagement of a genuine follower or a critical viewer rather than a paid/promotional message. For advertising feasibility: this comment type is positive in that it shows real engagement and conversation potential (long-form, emotional), which advertisers often value. However it is slightly negative/controversial in tone — if many comments follow this pattern it could indicate polarizing audience sentiment that may not suit all brands. Confidence in the fakeness judgment is relatively high because of the natural language and specificity; overall assessment confidence is lower because this analysis is based on a single comment. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of recent comments, check for repetition or patterns (identical phrasing, sudden volume), analyze overall sentiment distribution, and verify follower quality before final ad purchase decision." }

Text: Es ist aber echt wichtig die Fensterblende offen zu lassen..... gegen die UV-Strahlung kann man sich eincremen

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "advice/suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide a practical safety tip (leave window shade open, use sunscreen against UV) and engage conversationally with the post." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as a genuine, conversational piece of advice rather than promotional or bot-like content. It references a concrete action (window shade and sunscreen) and is phrased informally, suggesting a real user reaction. Because there is only one comment available, this provides very limited evidence about the overall authenticity or engagement quality of the influencer's audience. The comment does not indicate commercial intent or clear interest in a product/service, so its value for ad targeting is low. For a reliable advertising-purchase decision, analyze a larger sample of comments (volume, timing, diversity), like-to-comment ratios, commenter profiles, and recent engagement trends." }

Text: Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine opinion / conversational engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal preference (claims 'Internal medicine is more interesting') and engages playfully with emojis; likely organic audience interaction rather than promotional or bot activity." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment available ('Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁') reads as a genuine, short opinion with light, playful tone. It contains no promotional language, no repeated phrasing, and uses emojis in a way typical of real users. Given only one comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or the influencer's engagement quality robustly. The low fakeness score reflects the comment's natural language and lack of spam indicators; confidence is moderate because the sample is extremely small. For advertising purchase decisions, this single comment is neutral-to-slightly-positive (reflected in the overall score) but provides almost no signal about audience size, engagement rate, demographic fit, or prevalence of fake/bot comments. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (quantity, timing, language patterns), compare likes-to-followers ratio, check for repeated/similar comments across posts, review follower accounts for authenticity, and examine comment timestamps for inorganic bursts." }

Text: Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Humorous/reactive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and social bonding; signals an engaged (entertained) audience but contains no purchase intent or promotional value." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂') is a context-specific, colloquial reaction expressing amusement. It reads as organic rather than templated or promotional — the reference to 'die Gastro' and use of repeated laughing emojis suggest a genuine follower reacting to the content. As a lone data point it provides social proof (engagement) but no signals of conversion intent, product interest, or influencer authority. For advertising purchase feasibility this comment indicates audience engagement at the emotional/entertainment level but offers little value for direct ad targeting or performance prediction. Overall, more comments, diversity of comment types (questions, brand mentions, purchase-related language), and engagement ratios are needed to confidently evaluate ad suitability." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/positive engagement; low-information reaction that signals emotion but not meaningful endorsement" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is four laughing emojis (🤣🤣🤣🤣). This is an emoji-only, low-effort engagement that indicates amusement but provides no substantive opinion about the content or product. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers, casual viewers, and automated/low-quality accounts alike, so authenticity is ambiguous from this sample. Given only one comment, there is insufficient evidence to assess overall audience quality or engagement authenticity. If most comments on the post are similar (short emojis, single-word replies, repeated patterns), that would lower confidence in the influencer's organic reach and comment quality and raise the likelihood of inorganic engagement (engagement pods or low-effort bot activity). For ad-buy decisions: treat this as weak positive engagement but not reliable social proof. Recommend a deeper audit—check comment diversity, commenter account age/follower counts, timing patterns, repeated messages across posts, and engagement rates relative to follower count—before committing to advertising spend." }

Text: Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "amused reaction (laugh + emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive sentiment and visible engagement; signals momentary enjoyment but provides no purchase intent or topical feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂\" reads as a spontaneous, positive reaction (amusement). It is short, context-dependent and uses natural language plus emojis, which lowers the likelihood of it being a generic bot/template comment. However, it also carries low informational value for advertiser assessment — it does not reference the product, brand, price, or intent to engage beyond reacting. Given there is only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw reliable conclusions about audience quality or conversion potential. Recommendation: analyze the full comment set, commenter account profiles (age, followers, activity), comment diversity (questions, testimonials, complaints), like-to-comment ratio, reply behavior, and timing patterns before making an ad-purchase decision." }

Text: Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive niche praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for content related to obstetrics (Geburtshilfe) and add positive engagement (emojis amplify sentiment)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads \"Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍\" (German for \"obstetrics\") and is a short, positive reaction. It appears to be a topical/interest-driven compliment possibly from a follower who values the post's subject matter; the heart‑eyes emojis reinforce genuine positive sentiment rather than an obvious sales or bot message. However, with only one comment provided, the sample is far too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall comment quality or authenticity on the influencer's feed. Signs that would increase confidence (not available here) include account profiles of commenters, repetition of identical comments across posts, comment timestamps, comment-to-like ratios, and proportion of generic emoji-only or promotional comments. Recommendation: gather a larger and representative comment sample (several posts, top 50–200 comments), check commenter profiles for real account signals (profile photo, posting history, follower/following ratios), and look for patterns of duplication to make a robust fakeness and ad‑purchase decision." }

Text: Chirurgie ♥️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Topical short positive comment (single word + emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses interest/support for surgery-related content; indicates topical relevance but is low-effort (limited informative value)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Chirurgie ♥️\" appears topical and likely genuine — it uses a domain-specific word (German for 'surgery') plus a heart emoji, which is less typical of mass-generic bot spam. Because it is very short and low-effort, it signals engagement but not deep endorsement. However, one comment is an insufficient sample to assess the overall authenticity of the post's comments or the influencer's audience quality. For advertising decisions you should analyze a larger sample: comment volume and diversity, commenter profile quality (followers, posting history), timing patterns, repeated phrases across comments, and like-to-comment ratios. Given the limited data, I rate the comment section as cautiously usable but unproven for reliable ad targeting — further investigation is needed to raise confidence." }

Text: Dermatologie?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Clarification", "count": 1, "purpose": "A follower asking whether the post or account is related to dermatology — seeking information or clarification about content/credentials." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Dermatologie?') is available. It reads as a genuine, context-seeking question rather than promotional spam or a templated bot reply. Given the extremely small sample size there is low ability to detect coordinated or fake engagement; the low complexity and specificity of the comment could also be produced by a bot, but more likely it is a real user asking whether the topic is dermatology. For advertising feasibility: this snapshot shows minimal comment engagement and no obvious positive endorsement or strong interest signals, so it is weak evidence in favor of paying for influencer advertising. Recommendations: obtain the full comment set, like counts, follower quality, comment timestamps, language distribution and account history to make a reliable decision." }

Text: @corinnafeldmeier 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Notify or draw a friend's attention to the post and express amusement; lightweight engagement rather than substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single visible comment: a user mention (@corinnafeldmeier) plus a laughing emoji. This is a low-effort, low-information interaction typical of someone tagging a friend to view or laugh at the content. Such comments are common and often organic, but they provide no evidence of product interest, detailed endorsement, or sustained community engagement. There is a modest possibility this is from a comment pod or automated mention campaign (which would increase apparent engagement without real value), but with one short tag-and-emoji it's more likely an ordinary user mention. Overall, the comment sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about audience authenticity or ad effectiveness. For advertising purchase decisions, this single comment counts as low-quality social proof. I recommend analyzing more posts, comment diversity, like-to-comment ratios, follower quality, and comment timestamps to form a reliable assessment." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; low-effort engagement and social signalling. Can be genuine follower response but also commonly used by bots or paid-engagement services as filler." } ], "interpretation": "Dataset is extremely small (one comment: \"😂😂\"). That comment is an emoji-only reaction: it signals amusement or approval but conveys no substantive interest in the post content or the influencer's message. Emoji-only comments are low-information and frequently appear both from genuine followers (casual, quick reactions) and from inauthentic accounts or engagement pods. Given the single data point, I assess a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 45) but with low confidence (40) because there is insufficient context (no commenter profile, no comment frequency, no like counts, no follower-to-commenter relationship). For advertising feasibility, this single low-effort comment provides weak evidence of an engaged, relevant audience. I rate overall suitability for advertising at 30 with low confidence (30). Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history, engagement patterns), and metrics (likes per post, comment diversity, save/share behavior) before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Mein Lieblingsberuf. 👀 Der einzige Grund, warum ich in die Welt der Medizin gegangen bin.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "compliment / personal identification", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for the subject and state a personal connection (motivational anecdote about choosing medicine). Likely intended to engage and show affinity rather than to promote or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a natural-language German remark with an emoji and a specific personal statement (\"Der einzige Grund, warum ich in die Welt der Medizin gegangen bin\"), which suggests a real person expressing admiration/identification rather than a generic bot/spam message. Fakeness risk is low but not zero — short positive comments can sometimes be reused or appear across accounts. Because only one comment is provided, this is very limited evidence for influencer authenticity or audience quality. For advertising decisions you should request a larger sample (multiple posts, comment volume, timing, repeated phrasing), check commenter profiles (follower counts, activity, language consistency), and measure like-to-comment ratios and comment likes. Based on this single comment the signals are mildly positive for engagement but insufficient to support a confident purchase decision." }

Text: HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Humorous / personal reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and affection (emoji), likely an inside joke or specific reference to someone/event; engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣') reads like a genuine, informal reaction from a follower: a brief textual remark plus two expressive emojis indicating affection and laughter. 'HNO kam zu spät' (German: 'HNO came too late') looks like an inside joke or a reference to a person/incident rather than a generic compliment or a call-to-action; this reduces the likelihood it's bot-generated or promotional. Given only one comment sample, the dataset is too limited to draw strong conclusions about overall audience quality or engagement patterns. For advertising feasibility this single, apparently authentic comment is a small positive signal, but more data is required (multiple posts' comment distributions, recurring commenters, like-to-follower ratio, comment timestamps, language mix, and presence of inorganic patterns) before recommending ad spend." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂 Die Fürze bei der Gastro killen mich 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Humorous reaction / informal engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and engage with the post content (social/entertainment), no promotional intent or call-to-action." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is in German and reads: '😂😂😂😂😂 Die Fürze bei der Gastro killen mich 😂😂😂😂😂' (roughly: 'The farts in the restaurant kill me'), using multiple laughing emojis. This is a spontaneous, informal, humorous reaction rather than a promotional or spammy message. It contains no hashtags, links, tags, or generic praise phrases that commonly indicate inorganic or paid engagement. Given the colloquial language and emoji use, it appears authentic. However, this is only one data point — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience quality or authenticity. For influencer advertising feasibility: the comment signals some real, engaged followers reacting naturally, but lack of varied constructive comments, lacks promotional interest (no questions, no product feedback, no intent to purchase), and low comment volume reduces confidence that the account will drive measurable ad outcomes. Recommended next checks before purchase: review a larger sample of recent comments for repetition/patterns, check commenter account profiles for real follower signals, compare likes-to-comments ratio, and inspect comment timing patterns to detect mass-posting. Based on this single comment, authenticity is likely but engagement quality is low for ad conversion purposes." }

Text: Augenheilkunde? Spätestens beim Gasablassen nach einer DMEK wäre bei mir aus 😅

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 88, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal reaction / opinion (with clarifying question)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express personal stance/feeling about a medical procedure, and ask/confirm whether the post concerns ophthalmology; conversational engagement rather than promotion." } ], "interpretation": "The comment appears genuine: it uses a context-specific medical term (DMEK), idiomatic German phrasing and an emoji, and conveys a personal reaction ('I'd be out at the latest when releasing the gas after a DMEK'). Tone is informal, slightly humorous/negative about the procedure and includes an initial clarifying question ('Augenheilkunde?'). This is not promotional, not generic praise, and not typical bot/spam language. From an advertising-feasibility perspective the comment shows niche, topical engagement (audience aware of or interested in ophthalmology/eye procedures) but not positive endorsement. With only this single comment there's limited evidence of broad, positive audience sentiment or strong influencer-driven purchase intent. Suitable advertisers would be medical/eye-care brands or products that tolerate neutral/realistic audience reactions; brands seeking overtly positive testimonials or high-volume enthusiastic engagement would find weak evidence here." }

Text: Gute Wahl

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic praise / approval", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive sentiment; brief encouragement or agreement with the post" } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment is provided: \"Gute Wahl\" (German for \"Good choice\"). This is a low-effort, generic positive remark. Such comments can be genuine reactions from a follower, simple social reinforcement, or part of engagement pods/bot activity — there is insufficient context to be certain. The brevity, lack of personalization, and generic wording slightly increase the probability it could be inorganic, but a single instance is weak evidence either way. For influencer-advertising decisions, this single comment gives very low signal: it does not show detailed audience interest, product-related discussion, or diverse authentic engagement. Recommendation: obtain the full comment set, engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), follower quality metrics (age, location, activity), comment diversity, and any replies from the influencer to better assess authenticity and ad-fit." }

Text: Yeah Fließbandarbeit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical/negative (organic)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express dissatisfaction or call out content as formulaic/mass-produced" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Yeah Fließbandarbeit' (German for 'assembly line work'). This is a brief, negative/critical remark suggesting the commenter finds the post unoriginal or mass-produced. It reads as an organic user reaction rather than promotional, spammy, or bot-like: short colloquial phrasing and context-specific criticism point toward a real person rather than a generic engagement farm comment. However, a single comment is insufficient to draw robust conclusions about the overall comment quality or audience authenticity. For advertising decisions, this single negative comment is a weak negative signal — it may indicate some audience members perceive the influencer's content as formulaic, but you need more data (full comment set, like/comment ratios, follower growth patterns, time-distribution of comments, and commenter profiles) to reliably assess engagement quality and fraud risk. Recommendation: gather a larger sample of comments, check commenter account histories for authenticity, and review overall engagement metrics before finalizing ad purchase." }

Text: Ich habe auch dankend abgelehnt 😂 noch schlimmer ist nur Funktionsoberarzt 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/sarcastic personal anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "to share a personal reaction (declining something) while adding humor; to engage with the post and signal in-group familiarity (organic engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ich habe auch dankend abgelehnt 😂 noch schlimmer ist nur Funktionsoberarzt 😂') reads as organic and conversational: casual language, emojis, and a specific job-title reference make it look like a real user speaking jokingly. Purpose is not promotional — it expresses a personal stance and adds humor — so it is engagement but not brand interest. Given only one comment, this is a very small sample; the low fakeness score reflects that this comment appears genuine, but it cannot be extrapolated to overall audience authenticity. For advertising feasibility: this instance is mildly positive because the interaction appears human, but it does not demonstrate purchase intent or enthusiasm for sponsored content. I recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, overall engagement rate, comment diversity, follower quality, and recurrence of templated/bot-like language before making an ad-buy decision." }

Text: Und jetzt würde mich noch interessieren, wer saugt, wischt, Toilette putzt etc. 😅

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "conversational / humorous engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Light-hearted question/riff on the post (asks who does vacuuming, mopping, cleans the toilet, etc.). Shows relatability, invites banter and further replies from the creator or other followers." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a genuine-seeming, humorous engagement from a follower rather than an obvious bot or promotional spam. The tone (use of 😅) signals playful curiosity and community banter about household chores, likely triggered by the post's content/context. For advertiser considerations this is a positive sign: it indicates organic audience interaction and topical relevance for home/cleaning/household brands. Caveats: assessment is based on one comment only — not a representative sample. Recommend analyzing a larger set of recent comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and repeated identical comments across posts to confirm authenticity before making a buy decision." }

Text: Ich hatte als Fachärztin in der Neurochirurgie eine 60% Stelle und kam auf 40 Wochenstunden. Mich interessiert jetzt wirklich wie man als leitender OA auf nur 40h kommt und in welchem Fach!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Skeptical / professional challenge", "count": 1, "purpose": "To question the influencer's claim about working hours, provide a personal anecdote as counter-evidence, and request clarification (credibility check)." } ], "interpretation": "Один комментарий, написанный по-немецки, выглядит подлинно: лицо представляет себя как врач-нейрохирург и ставит под сомнение заявленные рабочие часы, прося уточнений. Это не похоже на автоматический или промо-комментарий — конкретика и профессиональный тон указывают на реального человека. Вывод: наличие таких комментариев свидетельствует о вовлечённой и критически настроенной аудитории, что повышает риск репутационных вопросов для инфлюенсера при несоответствии фактов. Однако на основе одного примера нельзя делать окончательные выводы о широкой фейковости комментариев — требуется дополнительный сэмплинг комментариев, проверка профилей комментирующих и соотношения лайков/ответов. Рекомендации для рекламы: перед покупкой кампании проверить больше комментариев, ответы инфлюенсера (наличие прозрачных объяснений) и качество аудитории (реальные профессиональные подписчики)." }

Text: Top!👍🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic short praise with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Surface-level positive engagement — expresses approval or support but adds no substantive interaction; often used by genuine followers, engagement pods, or automated accounts to boost visible metrics." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Top!👍🏼\" is a brief, generic praise with an emoji. Such comments are common and ambiguous: they can be honest quick reactions from real followers, but they are also frequently produced by engagement pods or simple bot scripts. With only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. Indicators slightly raising suspicion: one-word compliment + emoji (low information content). To improve confidence, review the commenter profile (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), look for repetition of similar comments across this influencer's posts, overall like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns, and prevalence of such generic comments. Based on this single comment, engagement quality looks weak-to-questionable for informing an advertising purchase decision; more data is required before recommending buy-in." }

Text: Wie bist du von der Augenheilkunde in der ästhetischen Medizin gelandet? Ich bin Internistin und liebe meine Fachrichtung- würde mich nur interessieren, weil ich solche Lebensläufe spannend finde 🤗

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 78, "overall_confidence": 75, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Professional question / genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about the influencer's professional trajectory (from ophthalmology to aesthetic medicine), express genuine curiosity and peer interest, possibly networking or starting a conversation." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is long, specific and topical (mentions being an internist and asks about career path), which are strong signals of authentic human engagement rather than bot/generic praise. It serves as a professional, curiosity-driven interaction and indicates relevant audience interest in the influencer's medical/aesthetic background — a positive sign for advertisers in medical, wellness, or aesthetics niches. Caveats: one authentic comment alone is not sufficient to judge overall audience quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions you should check: (1) the commenter's profile (real account, follower count, activity, specialty), (2) the broader comment distribution (are most comments similarly specific?), (3) overall engagement rate (likes vs. followers), (4) timing and repetitiveness of comments across posts to detect inorganic patterns. Based on this comment alone the risk of fakeness is low and the comment quality is good, but a more comprehensive sample of comments and account metrics is needed to make a high-confidence ad-buy decision." }

Text: Und jeder kriegt sogar noch ne Affäre unter, perfekt 😶‍🌫️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "sarcastic/negative", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disapproval/skepticism about the post; implies content feels staged or sensational (mentions an 'affair' sarcastically), not promotional or supportive." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a sarcastic, negative reaction in German ('Und jeder kriegt sogar noch ne Affäre unter, perfekt 😶‍🌫️'), which reads as an authentic user critique rather than a bot or promotional message. It uses colloquial language and an emoji to convey irony and displeasure, and does not follow common patterns of fake engagement (no generic praise, no emojis-only, no call-to-action). Fakeness is therefore low. Interpretation for advertising feasibility: this comment signals at least one follower perceives the content as staged or sensational, which could indicate audience skepticism or sensitivity around authenticity. On its own it is not a strong reason to reject an ad buy, but it is a cautionary flag — brands (especially those sensitive to trust/ethics) should review a larger sample of comments, engagement quality, and audience sentiment before purchasing. Additional checks recommended: comment sentiment distribution, repeat negative themes, commenter profiles (real vs bot), and overall engagement rate." }

Text: Es geht alles man muss nur wollen und sich organisieren können. 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Supportive / Motivational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express encouragement, provide positive social proof and engagement (short, generic praise with emojis)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a generic motivational statement in German: \"Es geht alles man muss nur wollen und sich organisieren können. 🔥🔥🔥\" — i.e., encouragement and positive reinforcement. Strengths: it signals at least some positive engagement and is language-appropriate for a German-speaking audience. Weaknesses: the comment is very generic, contains no personal detail, no reference to the post content, no questions, and no account-specific indicators (no tagging or unique phrasing), which are characteristics commonly seen both in low-effort genuine comments and in automated/engagement-pod responses. Given only one comment to evaluate, the fakeness likelihood is moderate-low (estimated 30/100) but with limited confidence. For advertising-feasibility, this single generic positive comment provides weak evidence of a genuinely engaged audience; overall suitability is moderate to low (45/100). Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments for diversity of language and content, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts (profile pictures, posting history, follower counts), check timing patterns (bursts consistent with pods/bots), and compare like-to-comment ratio and overall follower quality." }

Text: Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "skeptical / sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disbelief or mock the post's claim; show distrust and/or attempt to get a laugh (engagement via sarcasm)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂\" (German; roughly: \"Anyone who believes that will be blissful\"), which is sarcastic and dismissive. This comment most likely comes from a real human reacting skeptically — it contains natural language and an emoji used in a contextually appropriate way. With a single data point there is very low ability to judge overall comment authenticity, audience sentiment, or the prevalence of inorganic activity. The presence of sarcasm indicates some audience distrust of the post's claim or of the influencer in this instance; if similar comments are common across the post or account, that would be a negative signal for advertising (reduced credibility, potential backlash, lower conversion). Given the very small sample, my assessment is cautious: the comment itself appears genuine (low fakeness score) but provides limited positive evidence for ad purchase. I recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, account age, comment patterns), like-to-comment ratios, repetition of similar comments, and post-level metrics before making an advertising decision. If many comments are similarly skeptical or negative, lower the ad spend or renegotiate deliverables; if comments are mostly constructive/positive and from credible accounts, the influencer may still be a fit." }

Text: Zu, da kommst du aber sehr gut weg.Hätte dann auch lieber deinen Part😳

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal / Comparative (envious / teasing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses envy/teasing about the influencer's situation, signals engagement and familiarity; likely a real follower reaction rather than a promotional or automated message." } ], "interpretation": "Single observed comment ('Zu, da kommst du aber sehr gut weg. Hätte dann auch lieber deinen Part😳') reads as informal, specific and emotionally expressive (mild envy / playful teasing). Linguistic markers (natural phrasing, emoji, minor punctuation) reduce likelihood of being a bot or copy-paste spam. Strengths: appears genuine and relational, which is valuable for advertiser trust. Limitations: only one comment is provided — volume and diversity of engagement are unknown. For ad-purchase decisions this suggests authentic micro-engagement but insufficient quantity to judge overall audience activity or reach. Recommend analyzing the full comment set, comment timestamps, commenter account profiles (age, follower count, activity), and like-to-comment ratio before a final buy decision." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/affection and provide low-effort engagement; primarily serves as an algorithmic engagement signal. Can come from genuine followers, engagement pods, or automated/bought accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a heart emoji (❤️) — a low-information, low-effort engagement signal. Emoji-only comments are extremely common among real followers but are also frequently produced by engagement pods and bots, so with one example there is weak evidence either way. Given the minimal data, I assign a moderate probability that this comment could be non-genuine (fakeness_score 45) but with low confidence (35) because a single emoji cannot distinguish authentic fans from automated or purchased engagement. For advertising decision-making this comment is not a meaningful indicator of audience quality: it neither demonstrates engaged, product-relevant conversation nor proves an active, interested community. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads or partnerships: gather more comments across multiple recent posts, inspect commenter profiles (account age, posting history, follower counts), check like-to-comment ratios, look for substantive comments and conversational threads, analyze timing patterns (many comments posted within minutes can indicate pods/bots), and review reach/insights (views, saves, shares, demographic data). Based solely on this comment sample, I would rate suitability for ad spend as low (overall_score 30) but with limited confidence (35) due to lack of data." }

Text: Hat jemand Empfehlungen bzgl. Poren im Gesicht? 🥵

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Advice-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks personal skincare recommendations (poren/pores). Indicates genuine user need, invites replies and product/service suggestions." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, German-language, advice-seeking message ('Hat jemand Empfehlungen bzgl. Poren im Gesicht? 🥵'). Tone and emoji express personal concern and are consistent with organic engagement from a real follower seeking solutions. It contains no promotional language, no repeated template phrasing, and no obvious bot markers (no links, no emojis repeated many times, no generic praise). Given only one comment, overall fakeness suspicion is low (score 10) but this is a small sample so confidence is not absolute. For influencer advertising feasibility: this comment is a positive signal for skincare-related campaigns—it shows the audience is willing to ask for recommendations and engage around product/skin issues. However, one isolated comment is insufficient to conclude reliably about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Recommended next steps before buying ad space: analyze a larger comment sample (volume, diversity, timing), inspect commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), measure engagement rate (likes vs. comments), look for repetitive/similar comments indicating bots, and check story replies/DM patterns. If multiple comments show similar genuine behavior, the influencer would be a good fit for skincare advertising; if many comments are low-effort or templated, reconsider." }

Text: 😍👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/approval and increase visible engagement (social proof). Low informational value and no product-specific feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: two emojis (😍👏). Emoji-only comments are a common form of lightweight positive engagement: they signal approval and help algorithmic visibility but do not indicate genuine interest in product details or purchase intent. With a single emoji comment there's very limited signal — it can easily be a genuine quick reaction from a real follower, a low-effort response from an engagement pod, or a low-quality purchased/comment farm output. Given the ambiguity, I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood (40/100) but with low confidence (40/100) because sample size is minimal. Overall suitability for advertising cannot be judged from this single comment; I give a neutral overall score (50/100) with low confidence (30/100). Recommendations: obtain the full comments set and sample commenter profiles, check for patterns (repeated identical emojis across many commenters or posts, many accounts with no profile photos or generic handles, timing clusters), compare likes-to-comments ratio, and look for substantive comments (questions, product mentions, long-form praise) as stronger indicators of real engaged audience before buying ads." }

Text: Ich bin wirklich entsetzt über solche Aussagen…😮😮😮😮😮

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Negative/expressive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disapproval/outrage at post content; signal moral stance or call out controversial statement; may aim to provoke discussion or alert others." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ich bin wirklich entsetzt über solche Aussagen…😮😮😮😮😮') is a brief, emotionally charged expression of disapproval. It appears to be a genuine negative reaction rather than a promotional or spammy remark — short, specific emotion, and not pushing links or hashtags. However, one comment is an extremely small sample size: you cannot reliably assess overall audience authenticity or sentiment from it alone. Fakeness likelihood is low-to-moderate (score ~20) but confidence is limited because there is no profile/contextual data (account age, follower count, posting patterns) and no additional comments to check for repetition or coordinated behavior. For advertising decisions, this single negative comment is not decisive. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger set of recent comments for sentiment distribution, check for clusters of near-identical comments/emojis (sign of bots), inspect commenter accounts for real profiles and follower/following ratios, and review like-to-comment ratios and comment timestamps. If many similar negative comments appear or if negative sentiment is common among engaged users, treat as higher risk for brand alignment. Based on the limited data provided, the post is moderately acceptable for advertising but further audit is required." }

Text: Absolut an der Realität vorbei, ein Oberarzt hat mehr als 40h pro Woche, im operativen Bereich kann er dann schon um 7 Uhr im Krankenhaus erscheinen…landen dann die Kinder um sechs in der Kita, werden dann die Brot um fünf Uhr morgens geschmiert? Ganz bestimmt nicht…bleibt mal hier bei der Wahrheit…absolut lächerlich diese Aussagen 😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical / Negative", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct disagreement with the post's claims, correcting perceived factual errors based on personal/professional experience (medical field), expressing frustration and disbelief." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a clearly negative, argumentative response from someone claiming domain knowledge (references to working hours of a senior doctor and childcare logistics). Language and emoji use indicate a genuine emotional reaction rather than automated/bot behavior. There are no hallmarks of spam, promotional intent, or generic praise—instead it attempts to correct and discredit the original post. For influencer advertising assessment this signals at least some of the audience is critical and attentive to factual accuracy; if many comments are of this type it would reduce the influencer's credibility for campaigns that rely on trust or domain expertise (especially health/medical claims). Given only one comment, the dataset is limited: treat this as a sign of potential audience skepticism but not definitive proof of widespread negative sentiment." }

Text: Toll, dass Sie so einen schönen gemeinsamen Weg gefunden haben-das ist selten und sehr bewundernswert 💫ich finde es auch wirklich klasse, dass Sie zwei so tolle gebiete, Augenheilkunde und Ästhetik anbieten. Ich bin als Anästhesistin auch bei Augenärzten, es ist ein faszinierendes Fach! In Kombi mit Ästhetik und Longevity-fantastisch 🤍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 75, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine professional praise / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Compliment and endorsement of the practitioner's combined services (ophthalmology, aesthetics, longevity); peer networking and relationship-building (commenter identifies as an anaesthetist), signals topical relevance and credibility." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads as authentic: it is relatively long, specific (mentions 'Augenheilkunde und Ästhetik', the commenter's role as an 'Anästhesistin', and 'Longevity'), and offers praise and professional interest rather than generic compliments or call-to-action spam. These features reduce the likelihood of it being fake or bot-generated. Implications for influencer/advertising assessment: this comment is a positive signal that the account reaches at least some real, professionally relevant followers who understand the niche—valuable for campaigns targeting medical aesthetics or longevity products. Caveats: assessment is based on one comment only; broad conclusions require examining a larger sample of comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, mutual connections), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and diversity of engagement to rule out coordinated or purchased comments. Recommended next steps: review 50–100 recent comments, check commenter account authenticity, and compare engagement rates to benchmarks before final ad purchase decision." }

Text: Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "anticipation / positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "express interest and positive reaction to upcoming result; simple engagement to boost post metrics" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: “Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌” (German — “Looking forward to the result”). The comment is short, context-appropriate and uses a natural-language phrase plus emoji, which is more consistent with a genuine follower than with a clearly fabricated bot reply. However, the sample size is extremely small, so the fakeness assessment has limited confidence. For ad-buy feasibility this single positive comment slightly favors organic engagement but is insufficient evidence of a healthy, authentic audience. Recommend a full comments audit (volume, content diversity, commenter profiles, timing patterns, repeated/generic phrasing, like-to-comment ratios, follower overlap) before making purchase decisions." }

Text: Ja

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word affirmation", "count": 1, "purpose": "brief positive engagement/approval with minimal semantic content; could be genuine encouragement or low-effort/bot interaction" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment ('Ja') is present. It is a single-word affirmative remark offering minimal information about the commenter or true interest. Such short, language-neutral comments are commonly seen in both genuine quick reactions and automated/bought engagement, so the signal is weak. Given the lack of context (no commenter profile, no comment thread, no variety of comments), this sample is insufficient to substantiate authentic audience engagement. For advertising purchase decisions, this provides low confidence in audience quality or meaningful interaction; further data is needed (comment volume and diversity, commenter account analysis, engagement rate, timing patterns, and repeated comment templates) before recommending investment." }

Text: 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reaction/approval and quick engagement (low informational value; often used to signal support or enthusiasm)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: six repeated \"raising hands\" emojis. This is a generic positive engagement signal but contains no substantive text, which reduces its value for assessing authentic audience interest. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also frequently generated by bots or low-effort engagement farms because they are easy to automate and inflate visible engagement. Given just one comment, the dataset is too limited to draw strong conclusions. The moderate fakeness score reflects this ambiguity: the comment could be genuine enthusiasm from a follower or a low-effort/bot reply. For advertising purchase decisions, this single emoji comment is a weak positive signal (shows some visible engagement) but insufficient evidence of meaningful audience relevance or conversion potential. I recommend analyzing a larger sample of recent comments (diversity of language and content, frequency, follower profiles, timing patterns), overall engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), and looking for repeated phrases/accounts or suspiciously short comments to better assess authenticity and campaign suitability." }

Text: Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal/returning-customer comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses intent to return/visit and positive emotional connection (loyalty/interest)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢\" reads as a genuine, specific follower remark: it references prior experience with 'you', expresses a desire to return, and carries emotional weight via the emoji. This is more characteristic of a real engaged follower than a generic bot/spam comment. However, this is only one data point; low comment volume limits confidence in overall engagement quality. For advertising decisions, this comment is a small positive signal (real interest/loyalty) but insufficient alone to conclude the influencer has reliably authentic, scalable engagement. Recommended next steps: review total comment count, comment diversity, repetition patterns, like-to-follower ratio, follower authenticity, and temporal comment distribution before purchase." }

Text: 1 Woche nachdem ich bei dir war @liebdeingesicht. ✨🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 75, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "testimonial / personal follow-up", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive endorsement and show of results; tags the service provider to attribute the experience and provide social proof." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads (translated): \"1 week after I was at yours @liebdeingesicht. ✨🙌\" — this is concise, refers to a specific timing, tags the provider's handle, and uses celebratory emojis. These features (specific timing, direct tag, natural language) point toward a genuine client follow-up or informal testimonial rather than a generic bot message. Fakeness risk is low (score 10) but confidence is not maximal because the assessment is based on one comment only. For influencer/advertising decisions, this comment is a positive signal: it acts as social proof, indicates real-world service usage, and can help credibility. However, one comment is insufficient to conclude overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. I recommend further checks before purchase: review a larger sample of recent comments for diversity and specificity, inspect commenter profiles for real follower/following ratios and posting history, check likes and replies on comments, verify consistency over time (no sudden bursts), and request direct/testimonial proof if possible. If many similar comments exist from distinct-looking accounts, the post is a good sign for conversion; if similar phrasing repeats across many posts or commenters are suspicious (new accounts, no posts, generic usernames), that would raise fakeness considerably." }

Text: Lieben wir ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive generic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval / encouragement (short praise with emoji)" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment 'Lieben wir ❤️' (German: 'We love it') is a brief positive reaction consistent with an authentic follower expressing approval. It is generic and common, so while it does not show clear signs of being manufactured (no promotional language, no repetitive patterns, natural phrasing and emoji), the sample size (one comment) is too small to draw strong conclusions. Fakeness risk is low-to-moderate because short generic comments can appear both from genuine fans and from engagement pods/bot farms; confidence in this judgement is limited. For advertising decisions, this single comment is a weak signal: it suggests some positive audience reaction but does not provide evidence of engaged, real followers. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter account (age, activity, follower quality), analyze comment volume and variety across multiple posts, compare comment-to-like ratio and timing, and look for repeated phrasing across comments to better assess authenticity before purchasing advertising." }

Text: Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Information-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks how long the treatment lasts — seeks factual information and indicates genuine interest or potential intent to purchase/book." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?') reads as a straightforward, plausible user question about service longevity. It functions as engagement and information-seeking rather than generic praise, emoji spam, or self-promotion, which is typically a positive sign for ad feasibility because it suggests an audience interested in the service. Fakeness is assessed low (around 12) because the wording is natural and context-appropriate; confidence is moderate-high given the linguistic cue but limited by the sample size. Overall score for using this influencer for advertising is modest (around 45): a genuine-looking question is encouraging, but a single comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality, comment authenticity, commenter profiles, reply rate, like-to-follower ratio, or presence of mass-generic comments. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check commenter profiles for real accounts and topical relevance, measure response rate from the influencer, and review engagement metrics (likes, impressions, follower growth) before making an advertising decision." }

Text: Am 5., 6. Tag ist dann auch bei die Wirkung voll da. 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "testimonial/experience", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share personal experience about product effectiveness (social proof / validation)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Am 5., 6. Tag ist dann auch bei die Wirkung voll da. 🙌\". The content reads like a brief user testimonial reporting that the product's effect is fully noticeable by days 5–6, with a supportive emoji. This is characteristic of an authentic user experience (specific time frame, conversational tone). There are few hallmarks of fake/bot comments (no generic praise, no promotional hashtags, not templated); however the sample size is one, so assessment is limited. The minor grammatical slip is consistent with a natural author and does not indicate automation. Given the single-comment sample, social proof is weak for advertising decisions: one experiential comment is useful but insufficient to conclude broad audience enthusiasm or high engagement. Recommendation: obtain the full comment set, engagement rate (likes/comments relative to followers), comment diversity (multiple distinct testimonials vs. repeated phrases), commenter account checks (age, follower count, posting history), and compare across several posts before finalizing an advertising purchase. Current quick judgement: low probability the shown comment is fake, but overall confidence is moderate due to the tiny sample." }

Text: Was haltet ihr von dem BTX das gleich am nächsten Tag wirkt? Koreanisches zB

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks opinions/information about a product (BTX/Botox), implicitly expresses product interest/consideration." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a genuine-looking user question in German asking about a fast-acting BTX product (mentions 'Korean' as an example). It reads like organic audience engagement (curiosity or purchase consideration) rather than a promotional or bot-style message. Fakeness risk is low but not zero—could be a brand or affiliate seeding conversation, though wording is natural. Because this is only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or community engagement. For advertising feasibility: the content indicates a potentially relevant and interested audience for aesthetic/dermatological products, but you should review a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (accounts, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, and overall engagement rates before deciding. Recommended next steps: analyze more comments (50–200), check commenter authenticity (profile age, posts, followers, interaction patterns), and compare comment types and sentiment across multiple posts." }

Text: Warum kannst du deine Augenbrauen noch bewegen, obwohl du ein Browlift und deine Stirn gemacht hast? Ich kann danach meine Augenbrauen nicht mehr bewegen. Ich würde sie aber gerne noch bewegen können.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal question / experience-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for information and comparing personal outcomes after a cosmetic procedure (browlift/forehead work); expresses concern and seeks reassurance or explanation." } ], "interpretation": "The sole comment is a direct, specific question about post-procedure eyebrow mobility and contrasts the commenter’s experience with the influencer’s visible result. Language (German) suggests a regional audience. The content is specific, medically relevant, and framed as a personal experience rather than generic praise or advertising, so it appears genuine (low probability of being fake). For advertising feasibility: this kind of detailed, topical engagement is positive — it indicates followers ask meaningful, product-/procedure-relevant questions and may trust the influencer for medical/cosmetic guidance. However, with only one comment provided, there is insufficient data to judge overall engagement volume, community sentiment, or prevalence of inorganic comments. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments (quantity, diversity, timing), response rate from the influencer, and follower authenticity before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: Kann man irgwndwas tun das die Haut ums Auge nicht so hängt nach einer Zornesfaltenbehandlung?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "User question / treatment concern", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask for medical/aftercare advice about cosmetic procedure (concern about sagging skin around the eye after frown-line treatment)." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is a direct, specific question in German about side effects of a cosmetic procedure ('Can anything be done so the skin around the eye doesn't sag so much after a frown-line treatment?'). It contains a small typo ('irgwndwas' for 'irgendwas'), which is a humanizing signal. The tone is non-promotional and seeks practical advice, so it's very likely genuine rather than bot/spam. Fakeness risk is low (score 10) with strong confidence because the content is specific and contextually relevant rather than generic praise or sales language. For advertising feasibility: this comment indicates the audience may be interested in cosmetic procedures and aftercare, which is valuable for advertisers in that niche. However, this is one data point — the overall assessment is moderately positive (60) but limited by sample size. Before committing to advertising purchases, analyze a larger set of comments for patterns (repetition, timing, language variety), check commenter account characteristics (recent activity, follower/following ratios, profile completeness), examine like counts and reply behavior, and look for clusters of identical or generic replies that would indicate inauthentic engagement." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short positive reaction / applause; signals approval or excitement without substantive engagement. Can serve to boost visible engagement metrics (likes/comments)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is five fire emojis — a generic positive reaction. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they may be genuine quick reactions from real followers, or low-effort engagement from bots/engagement pods. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient evidence to judge audience authenticity or ad-readiness. Indicators that would raise suspicion include (a) many identical emoji comments across posts, (b) commenters with sparse profiles or obvious bot signals, (c) high comment volume composed of generic emojis only. Recommended next steps before buying advertising: inspect a larger sample of comments across recent posts, examine commenter profiles (followers, posting history, avatars), check comment timestamps for bursts, review overall follower-to-engagement ratio and story/DM activity. Based on the single emoji comment, sentiment is positive but quality of engagement is uncertain — not enough to confidently recommend an ad buy." }

Text: Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval and affection (social proof / engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓') is a brief, positive compliment in German directed at two people. It appears genuine: it is specific (references 'both of you'), contains emojis, and has no promotional language or calls to action. Given only one comment, sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall authenticity of the account's audience. Low fakeness score reflects the likely genuine nature of this particular comment, but confidence is limited by lack of additional comments. For advertising feasibility: this single positive comment is a mild signal of organic engagement but insufficient as evidence of strong, authentic community interest. Recommend reviewing a larger set of comments (volume, diversity, timing), overall engagement rate (likes vs. followers), follower quality (accounts vs. bots), and commenter profiles before making a buy decision." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_support", "count": 1, "purpose": "positive reaction / social approval / low-effort engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: three heart emojis. This is a positive but very low-information signal — indicates sentiment (liking/support) but gives no evidence of genuine interest, purchase intent, or meaningful engagement. Short emoji comments are common from both real followers and automated/bot accounts, so there is a moderate probability of inauthenticity (hence the fakeness_score ~60) but low confidence because the sample size is one. For advertising decisions this single comment is insufficient. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts; check commenter profiles (age, activity, follower/following ratio, posting history); look for repeating comments or identical emoji patterns (bot indicators); compare comment diversity and depth to like counts; request influencer analytics (impressions, saves, reach, audience demographics). Based on current data, treat the comment as weak social proof and require further authenticity checks before committing ad spend." }

Text: Was würde diese Behandlung im Set den kosten?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 20, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product inquiry / price question", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about price/cost of a treatment set (potential purchase intent)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a straightforward, natural-language question in German asking about the cost of a treatment set. It contains a small typo but otherwise reads like an authentic potential-customer inquiry rather than a generic compliment, spam, or bot pattern. Because there is only one comment provided, engagement is very low, so while this comment appears genuine (low fakeness score), the sample size is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or influence reliably. For advertising purchase decisions, more comments, likes, follower demographics and engagement metrics are needed; based solely on this comment the post shows minimal social proof and limited evidence of an engaged, purchasing audience." }

Text: ❤️ Ich hab gerade beschlossen… ich mache zeitnah einen Termin bei dir…. Ich will auch!!!!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine interest / conversion intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "States a concrete intent to book an appointment with the influencer — a direct conversion signal and useful social proof for advertising." }, { "type": "Positive engagement (emoji + enthusiastic language)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment and encouragement (heart emoji, enthusiastic punctuation) which boosts perceived popularity and visibility." } ], "interpretation": "The comment reads as authentic: it contains specific, personal language ('bei dir'), a clear action intent ('mache zeitnah einen Termin'), and emotional cues (heart emoji, multiple exclamation marks). These are signals of a real follower ready to convert rather than a generic or templated bot reply. I rated fakeness low (10) but with moderate confidence because a single comment is limited evidence — it could be from a real fan, a friend, or a hired commenter. For advertising-feasibility assessment this is a positive datapoint (direct intent → good conversion potential), but you should not rely on one comment. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, inspect commenter profile (age, follower/following ratio, prior interactions with the influencer), check for repetitive/comment-patterns across posts, timing of comments, and overall engagement rate. If most comments show similar genuine intent and profiles look legitimate, the influencer is more likely suitable for ad spend; if you find many short/generic replies or suspicious accounts, lower suitability." }

Text: Bei dir fühlt man auch nichts 🥰💁🏻‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 75, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express affection or praise toward the influencer, signalling supporter engagement and increasing perceived likability." }, { "type": "Emoji-driven engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Use of emojis (🥰💁🏻‍♀️) to convey emotion/playfulness; typically used by real followers to show warmth or flirtatious support." }, { "type": "Ambiguous / unclear wording", "count": 1, "purpose": "The literal phrasing is grammatically odd or potentially sarcastic, which creates uncertainty about the true sentiment (could be a typo, dialect, or ironic comment)." } ], "interpretation": "Comment text (German): \"Bei dir fühlt man auch nichts 🥰💁🏻‍♀️\" — literal reading is awkward, but the most likely intended meaning (given the emojis) is positive (e.g., attempting to say one feels good/comfortable or expressing affection). The message contains informal language and emojis rather than generic promotional phrases or repeated templates, which are typical signs of organic, human engagement. There are no clear bot indicators (no links, no repeated hashtags, no generic single-word praise like \"Nice\" posted en masse). However, the unclear wording reduces certainty about sentiment (could be a typo or light sarcasm). Given a single comment sample, this looks low-probability fake: score ~15/100 (confidence 60). For advertising feasibility: this single comment is a mildly positive signal — suggests at least some real, engaged followers — but it is only one data point. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger set of comments for variety and authenticity (unique commenter rate, comment length/quality, presence of conversation, timing patterns), check follower-to-engagement ratios and audience demographics, and look for brand-related comments or purchase-intent messages. Based on this single comment, rate for ad-feasibility is 75/100 (confidence 60) — cautiously favorable but requires broader comment and metric analysis to confirm." }

Text: Botox in den trapezius…😳

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic/skeptical user comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise and possible concern or curiosity about a procedure (Botox in the trapezius); generates natural engagement (emotional reaction and potential follow-up questions)." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment ('Botox in den trapezius…😳') appears genuine and spontaneous rather than manufactured: it's short, topical, uses an emoji to convey surprise, and questions or reacts to the content. Fakeness risk is low (score 10) with reasonably high confidence because the comment reads like an individual reaction rather than a promotional or templated message. However, there is only one comment to analyze — sample size is minimal. For influencer ad-buy decisions this one comment suggests the audience notices and reacts to medical/cosmetic claims, which could be relevant for brand safety or campaign alignment (some advertisers may view cosmetic procedure content as sensitive). Overall engagement signal from comments is weak due to low volume; you should request a larger sample (multiple posts), examine commenter account quality (real profiles vs. bots), timing of comments, like-to-comment ratios, and influencer replies before making a buying decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement / low-effort engagement; provides social proof but little marketing insight" } ], "interpretation": "The dataset contains a single comment composed of three laughing emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are low-information: they register engagement and can boost surface metrics but do not indicate interest, intent, or influence on purchase decisions. Such comments are commonly genuine quick reactions but are also used by automated accounts and engagement pods, so with one example we cannot reliably classify it as authentic or fake. Therefore I assign a modest fakeness score (30) with medium confidence (50). For advertising feasibility this comment is weak evidence of an engaged, targetable audience; overall suitability is low-to-moderate (score 35) with limited confidence (40). To make a robust recommendation, analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, look for conversational comments, user tagging, repeated phrases or timing patterns indicative of bots, and compare comment/like ratios to follower counts and historical engagement trends." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement or positive reaction; low-effort engagement that signals attention but provides little information about audience quality or intent" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment (😂😂😂) is available, which gives very limited signal. Emoji-only comments commonly appear from genuine followers as quick reactions, but they are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort accounts. Based on this single data point I judge the comments to be more likely genuine than obviously fake, but the confidence is low. This is insufficient to assess influencer suitability for advertising. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments (ideally 200–500), examine diversity of comment content, timing patterns, commenter profile quality (followers, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, and engagement rate over multiple posts; run automated bot-detection and look for repeated phrases/handles. Without that, any decision on purchasing advertising against this influencer would be high risk." }

Text: 🎵”Vollbepackt mit tollen Sachen, die das Leben schöner machen, hinein ins Weekend-Feeling! Mit Zott Sahnejoghurt, sahnig, fruchtig, frisch und dann... hinein ins Weekend-Feeling, mmh, lass dich mal gehen, schalt einfach ab, erlebe den sahnigen Geschmack... mit Zott ins Weekend-Feeling!"🎵

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 85, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Promotional / Branded Jingle (likely copy-paste)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Promote a product/brand (Zott Sahnejoghurt); increase brand recall and positive association. Could be posted by a brand account, a paid promoter, or an automated/spam account repeating marketing copy." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is verbatim brand/jingle copy which reads like marketing text, not an organic user reaction. That pattern suggests inorganic involvement (brand reposting, paid promoter, or bot/spam), or at best a highly engaged fan parroting an ad. For influencer advertising feasibility this type of comment provides weak evidence of genuine audience engagement: it signals brand visibility but not authentic conversation, product endorsement from independent followers, or meaningful sentiment. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments, look for diverse organic replies, check follower quality and historic engagement patterns (likes vs. comments, repeat commenters, timing), and verify if the post was a sponsored placement. Based on this single comment, treat engagement quality as low-to-moderate and proceed with caution before purchasing ad inventory or partnering." }

Text: Den Spruch auf der Jägermeister Flasche (ich trinke keinen Alkohol)

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "observational / personal disclosure", "count": 1, "purpose": "Calls out a phrase on the product (Jägermeister bottle) and adds a personal note of non-consumption — engagement/feedback and audience signal." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears genuine and non-promotional: the user is noting copy on a product and adding a personal disclaimer that they don't drink alcohol. Fakeness is low (likely a real user), but the sample size is too small to draw robust conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or audience composition. For ad-buy decisions this one comment signals that at least some followers may not be consumers of alcohol, which is relevant for alcohol brands or responsible-targeting requirements. Overall there is insufficient data here to assess engagement quality or audience fit; recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, like/dislike ratios, commenter profiles (activity, followers), and temporal patterns before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: Das ist beeindruckend 👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic praise/compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment toward the post; basic engagement (emoji clap) without product-specific intent or call-to-action." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: 'Das ist beeindruckend 👏' (\"This is impressive 👏\"). It reads as a genuine, simple praise/engagement message rather than a promotional or clearly bot-driven line. Because the sample is extremely small (one comment) the certainty is limited. This comment alone provides weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience — it shows positive sentiment but no sign of detailed interest, conversation, requests, or purchase intent. For advertising-purchase decisions you should not rely on this lone comment: examine total comment volume, unique commenters, comment-to-follower ratio, comment timing, replies, likes on comments, language consistency with audience, and follower quality. Based on the single comment, I assess low likelihood of widespread fake commenting but also low demonstrated commercial engagement; hence a cautious, low–moderate overall suitability score for advertising until more engagement and audience signals are analyzed." }

Text: All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/generic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation/affirmation and social engagement (uses emojis to reinforce tone)" } ], "interpretation": "Single German comment: \"All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️\" — a brief, positive, emoji‑rich reply implying the monthly gatherings/events produced noticeable results. Tone is friendly and informal; content is not promotional (no product mention or call‑to‑action) and appears to reference insider knowledge (\"Monatsfeiern\"), which leans toward genuine follower commentary rather than templated bot reply. However, with only one comment there is very low signal: cannot assess overall audience quality, repetition patterns, or bot networks. Fakeness scored low (20) but confidence is moderate‑low because of the extremely small sample. Overall suitability for an advertising purchase based on comments alone is limited (score 40): the single positive comment is mildly encouraging but insufficient to conclude strong, authentic engagement. Recommended next steps: obtain a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles for follower counts and activity, analyze likes-to-comments ratio, look for recurring generic phrases/emoji patterns, and verify follower provenance before purchase decisions." }

Text: Was geht 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Casual conversational / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short friendly/check-in message and expression of amusement (engage with the poster, trigger notifications, social acknowledgement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, 'Was geht 😂😂😂' (German: 'What's up' with laughing emojis) is a brief, informal, low-effort engagement typical of a genuine follower or friend. It contains colloquial language and emojis, not promotional wording or repeated bot-like patterns. Based on this lone comment the fakeness risk is low (score ~20), but confidence is limited because one short comment is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or engagement quality. For influencer advertising decisions this provides almost no signal about audience quality, engagement rate, or bot activity—recommend collecting and analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, and ratios of likes-to-comments before purchasing ad space. Current overall assessment is cautious/neutral (45) with low confidence due to lack of data." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji + generic praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/enthusiasm (social proof). Low informational value; primarily signals engagement rather than intent or feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it”) is a brief, high-energy reaction made of emojis and a short praise. This type of comment often increases visible engagement but conveys no purchase intent or meaningful feedback. It can be organic (a real user expressing enthusiasm) or inorganic (bot, engagement pod, or low-effort/paid responder) — the content itself is non-specific, so the risk of it being fake is moderate. With only one example, there is insufficient evidence to assess overall audience quality or authenticity for advertising decisions. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter’s profile (age, follower count, posting history, interaction patterns), check for many similar comments across other posts, review overall comment diversity and timing, and evaluate like-to-comment ratios and follower engagement rates before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind? …

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Literary/Quoted comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Engagement / emotional or cultural connection (quote from Goethe's 'Erlkönig'), possibly playful or attention-getting rather than direct product-related interaction" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: the German line \"Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind? …\" (opening of Goethe's 'Erlkönig'). With one comment there is very limited evidence to assess overall comment authenticity or community quality. This comment appears organic — a literary quotation intended to evoke mood or start a conversation — and not a stock promotional line or obvious bot pattern. Fakeness is assessed as low (10/100) but with moderate uncertainty because one comment is insufficient to detect coordinated or fake behavior. For influencer-ad suitability the signal is weak: there is at least some human engagement, but a single poetic comment does not indicate active, topic-relevant audience, meaningful discussion, or conversion potential. I recommend collecting more data before purchase: number of comments, comment diversity, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), time distribution of comments, and like-to-comment ratios. If subsequent analysis shows many similar short quotes, generic praises, or accounts with botlike characteristics, raise the fakeness score and lower the suitability rating accordingly." }

Text: Wasserentnahmestelle Unterflurhydrant. Verteiler an die markierte Stelle. 1. Rohr zum linken Brandabschnitt über die Leiterwand vor. C-leitung selbst verlegen 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "technical instruction / expert comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provides operational guidance (firefighting: hydrant, distributor, hose routing) and signals domain expertise; uses emoji to add a humorous/light tone and engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (in German) contains specific, domain-knowledge instructions about water extraction from an underground hydrant, placement of a distributor, and routing of a C-line — language consistent with a firefighter or someone with practical firefighting experience. The laughing emoji softens the tone and suggests a familiar or joking interaction rather than automated praise or spam. Fakeness is low because the content is specific, technical, and not generic or promotional. However, this is only one comment: it does not provide enough evidence about the overall audience quality or engagement patterns. If many comments on the post are similar (technical, expert), the account likely has a niche, professional audience (good fit for safety, B2B, or trade-related advertising). If this comment is an outlier among generic/engagement-bait comments, it carries less weight. Recommendation: before purchasing advertising, collect more data — number of comments, like counts, commenter profiles (are they real firefighters/industry accounts), ratio of meaningful comments to generic ones, follower authenticity metrics, and historical ad performance (if available). Based on this single comment alone, the post shows a sign of genuine, expert engagement but insufficient breadth to strongly support advertising for consumer brands; it may be suitable for niche professional/safety-related advertisers pending broader audit." }

Text: Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/encouragement", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation/support; show emotional resonance and encourage the creator" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛' is a short, emotionally positive reply conveying appreciation and reassurance. Its natural phrasing and use of an emoji are consistent with genuine audience engagement rather than typical bot/spam patterns (no links, hashtags, repetitive phrasing). That yields a low fakeness score (10) with moderate-high confidence for this individual comment. However, this is only one data point: the sample is too small to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality reliably. For advertising-feasibility decisions you need more signals (volume and diversity of comments, commenter account quality, like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, reply threads, follower growth history). Given only this comment, the overall assessment is cautious (40/100) — it suggests at least some real engagement but provides insufficient evidence to recommend ad spend without further analysis." }

Text: Ganz klar, die Deklination aller Endungen aller Stämme aus dem Latein Unterricht. Beispiel a-Deklination: a, ae, ae, am, a, plural: ae, arum, is, as, is. IYKYK 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "insider reference / educational / humor", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show knowledge/inside joke, entertain and signal community belonging (IYKYK + emoji)" }, { "type": "generic praise / emoji", "count": 0, "purpose": "None observed — would indicate low-effort engagement if present" }, { "type": "promotional / spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "None observed — would indicate paid or inorganic comments" }, { "type": "question / inquiry", "count": 0, "purpose": "None observed — would indicate desire for interaction or info" }, { "type": "bot-like / copy-paste", "count": 0, "purpose": "None observed — would indicate automated/inorganic behavior" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a genuine, specific, context-aware remark referencing Latin declension (an inside/educational joke) and uses casual internet shorthand (IYKYK) plus an emoji, which indicates a human commenter familiar with the subject and comfortable engaging. There are no signs of promotional, generic, or bot-like behavior in this comment. Strengths: meaningful engagement, topical relevance, community signal. Limitations: analysis is based on a single comment — not representative of overall audience behavior. For influencer ad-purchase decisions this single sample is mildly positive (shows engaged, culturally literate followers) but insufficient alone. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments for proportion of meaningful vs. generic comments, check follower authenticity metrics (follower growth, like-to-follower ratio, comment diversity), and examine comment timestamps and account profiles to detect bots or paid comment patterns." }

Text: Wer beweist, dass da kein Teleprompter war? 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "skeptical/joking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Question the authenticity of the content (implying it may be scripted or produced), while using humor to engage." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: a German-language, humorous rhetorical question about a teleprompter. This reads as organic audience engagement expressing mild skepticism about how produced the content was. Low likelihood this single comment is a bot or purchased (hence low fakeness score). For advertising decisions this is a minor negative signal — it shows some followers may question authenticity, which can matter for trust-dependent products. However, with only one comment there is insufficient evidence of widespread negativity or fake engagement. Recommended next steps before purchase: sample a larger set of comments, check like-to-comment ratio, examine commenter profiles for authenticity, and review recent posts for consistent sentiment and engagement quality." }

Text: If you have the inspiration to complete the population, take a girl behind the door lay her safety in the floor. Take away the decoration and begin the fabrication if you are both in Action, satisfaction satisfaction 🤐irgendwann mal irgendwo gelesen und seit mehr als 30 Jahren einfach in meinem Kopf 🤯

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal anecdote / quoted line (auto-translated or garbled)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a remembered line or thought, express nostalgia/mental resonance with the post; not promotional or clearly manipulative." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears to be a personal recollection or a quoted line that was likely auto-translated or written with poor grammar, producing a somewhat nonsensical English phrasing followed by a clear German sentence meaning 'read sometime somewhere and it's just been in my head for more than 30 years.' This suggests an organic, individual reaction rather than promotional spam or coordinated bot activity. However, the comment provides low topical relevance and limited value as an engagement signal for advertisers. Given only this one comment, assessment confidence is moderate. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments, plus metrics (like/comment ratio, follower quality, recurring identical comments) to better detect bots or inorganic engagement before making advertising purchase decisions. Current take: likely genuine but low-quality engagement — proceed with caution and verify broader engagement patterns." }

Text: Werbespots aus den 90ern… einfach ins Gehirn gebrannt 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "nostalgic/engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express nostalgia and positive reaction; engage with the post by sharing a memory and emotional response (social proof/engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Werbespots aus den 90ern… einfach ins Gehirn gebrannt 😂') reads as a genuine, organic reaction: nostalgic, conversational, and emoji‑laden. It does not contain promotional language, hashtags, calls to action, or repetitive/generic phrasing typical of bots or paid comments. Given only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience authenticity or influencer quality for advertising. The low fakeness score reflects high likelihood this individual comment is real, but the overall assessment is conservative because more data (volume of comments, repetition patterns, commenter account quality, timing, like-to-comment ratios) is needed to judge ad purchase feasibility. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger comment set, reviewer accounts, and engagement patterns before committing to advertising." }

Text: Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "product/service request", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses desire or intent to receive/try a specific offering mentioned in the post (possible purchase interest or booking request)." }, { "type": "informal positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Casual, friendly reaction using emojis and humor to engage with the creator and show positive sentiment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️\" is short, colloquial German with a laughing emoji and raised-hand emoji. It reads as a light-hearted request or expression of interest in whatever \"Full Freeze\" refers to (a product, service, or menu item) and signals positive intent/engagement from the commenter. Fakeness likelihood is low because the phrasing, emojis and specificity are typical of a genuine user; however, with only one comment available, confidence is limited. For advertising purchase feasibility this single comment indicates some organic interest but provides insufficient evidence of consistent, high-quality audience engagement. Recommend further checks before buying ads: volume and diversity of comments across multiple posts, commenter profile authenticity (real follower counts, posting history), likes per comment, timing patterns, and presence of repetitive or templated comments that would indicate inorganic engagement." }

Text: Wie wenig botox! 😅 och hab immer 30 Einstiche im Gesicht. Aber ich steh halt auch nicht auf natürlich. Man soll aus 50km Entfernung sehen wofür und wie viel Geld ich ausgebe! 🤣 Ich will gar keine Mimik. Anders passt es sonst nicht zu meinem Charakter!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "sarcastic / humorous", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express humor and mock exaggeration about Botox; entertain and signal stance on appearance;" }, { "type": "critical / trolling", "count": 1, "purpose": "Mocking/critique of the influencer's look or perceived cosmetic procedures; possible provocation;" }, { "type": "engagement-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generate reaction (likes/replies) via provocative phrasing and emojis;" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment is a sarcastic, joking critique about heavy Botox use. It uses first-person exaggeration, multiple emojis and informal tone, which are typical of genuine human responses rather than automated/bot output. Purpose appears to be humor and provocation rather than promotion. Fakeness risk is low (score ~10) because the comment is specific, context-aware and uses varied language and emojis; however, without more comments it's impossible to be certain. For advertising feasibility: this isolated comment indicates at least some audience members engage playfully or critically with the influencer's appearance. That can be neutral-to-negative for brand safety depending on the product category (beauty/aesthetics advertisers may be sensitive). The sample size (one comment) is too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall community sentiment or authenticity. Recommendation: perform a larger comments sample analysis (look for volume of organic, conversational comments vs. generic praise; repetitive/patterned comments; commenter profiles) and check follower authenticity metrics before an ad buy." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/positive reaction; low informational or promotional value" } ], "interpretation": "The only comment is a single laughing emoji (😂). Emoji-only comments are common genuine micro-engagement but are also used by low-effort bots and fake accounts. With a single, context-free emoji there is very little signal: authenticity is plausible but unproven. I rate fakeness as moderately low (30) but with low confidence (25) due to the extremely small sample size. For advertising feasibility I give a cautious, below-average score (40) with low confidence (20) because one non-specific emoji does not demonstrate an engaged, relevant, or authentic audience. Recommendation: analyse a larger sample of comments, like-to-follower ratio, follower growth patterns, and comment diversity before deciding on a purchase." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "short reaction/express amusement or approval; lightweight engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists solely of two laughing emojis (\"😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers, friends, or casual viewers, but they are also commonly produced by bots or engagement farms because they require no effort and are generic. Given the single data point, there is insufficient evidence to confidently judge audience authenticity. The moderately-high fakeness score (60) reflects that emoji-only comments are a common sign of low-quality engagement, but the confidence is limited (40) because a short emoji can absolutely be legitimate. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is a weak signal — it shows some engagement but no substantive conversation, no endorsement, and no diversity of commenters or comment content. I recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, checking commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), measuring overall engagement rate (likes vs. followers), and looking for varied, specific comments before making an ad purchase decision. Current recommendation: exercise caution; do not rely on this post's comments alone to validate audience quality." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (laugh)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval; a low-effort engagement that signals attention but carries little qualitative information about sentiment or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided (\"😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only reactions are common and often genuine, but they are low-effort and provide weak evidence of meaningful engagement or an active, authentic community. Because bots and low-quality accounts sometimes post emoji comments to inflate engagement, there is a non-zero chance of inauthenticity—hence a modest fakeness score (25) with moderate uncertainty (confidence 40) due to the extremely small sample. For advertising feasibility this single emoji comment is not persuasive: it neither indicates purchase intent nor demonstrates conversational, topical, or influential engagement. Overall score 30 reflects limited informational value from the available comment data, with low confidence (35). Recommendation: obtain the full comment set and profile samples (commenter usernames, follower counts, timestamps, comment diversity, reply threads, likes on comments) and compute engagement rate and follower authenticity metrics before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval and increase visible engagement; low informational value and not indicative of purchase intent" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment provided: a string of laughing emojis followed by a raised-hands emoji. Emoji-only comments are common for genuine quick reactions but are also frequently used by bots, engagement pods, or low-effort paid commenters. With this single generic reaction we have low signal about authentic audience interest or purchase intent—it shows surface-level engagement but no product-specific feedback, questions, or endorsements. The moderately high fakeness score reflects that emoji-only comments are easy to fake and offer little behavioral evidence; confidence is moderate because such comments can also be legitimately from followers. For advertiser feasibility: this single comment neither supports nor strongly undermines an ad buy decision. Recommended next steps before purchasing: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for repeated identical emojis/text, check commenter account(s) for real profiles and activity, compare comment-to-like ratios and follower quality, and look for longer substantive comments or direct messages that indicate intent or trust." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement or approval; low-information engagement (adds to visible activity but gives no actionable sentiment or purchase intent)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three laughing-face emojis. This is a minimal, low-information engagement signal. Emoji reactions are common from real followers but are also trivially reproducible by bots or engagement pods, so the fakeness estimate is moderate but uncertain. From an advertising-feasibility perspective this comment provides no evidence of audience purchase intent, brand alignment, or meaningful conversation. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, activity), analyze like:comment ratios and diversity of comment language/tone, and use automated bot-detection or manual spot checks before making ad-buy decisions." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "expressive engagement (amusement/approval) with no substantive feedback or context" } ], "interpretation": "The only observed comment is a two-laughing-emoji reaction. Emoji-only comments are common in organic engagement but are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or bots to inflate metrics. With a single emoji comment there is low informational value about audience quality, sentiment depth, or purchasing intent. Given the limited sample, I assign a moderate chance of inauthenticity but with low confidence. For an advertising buy decision, this single comment neither supports nor strongly undermines the influencer's value; you should analyze a larger sample (number of comments, unique commenter accounts, follower profiles, comment timestamps, ratio of substantive comments to emojis, and like/comment engagement rates) before deciding." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or quick engagement; low-information reaction meant to signal approval/attention rather than start conversation." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: a laughing emoji (\"😂\"). This is a lightweight engagement signal — it shows a reaction but carries no topical information, endorsement, or intent to purchase. Short emoji comments are common from genuine followers because they require minimal effort, but they are also frequently produced by bots or engagement pods since they inflate visible engagement without revealing audience quality. Given the extremely small sample (one comment), the fakeness estimate is tentative: there's some chance this is genuine, but a nontrivial chance it is automated or from an engagement network. For advertising-feasibility purposes this comment provides weak evidence of an engaged, relevant audience. I recommend obtaining more data before deciding: total comment volume and diversity, ratio of substantive comments to emojis, likes per post, follower count and growth patterns, audience demographics, and checks for repeated generic comments across multiple posts. With the current single-emoji sample, I rate the post low (~30/100) for reliable advertising suitability, with low-to-moderate confidence in that assessment." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 20, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressive/reaction engagement (amusement). Low information content — signals a positive or amused reaction but not purchase intent or detailed feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a laughing emoji (\"😂\"). Emoji-only comments are common and can come from genuine followers as quick reactions or from automated/bot accounts; by themselves they provide very low signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or purchase intent. Given the single, low-information comment: - Likelihood of being fake is present but not high (some bots post emojis), so estimated fakeness is moderate-low (30/100) with low confidence (35/100) due to extremely limited data. - For advertising feasibility the comment set is insufficient: overall usefulness for ad decision-making is low (20/100) with low confidence (30/100). Recommendations: collect more data before buying ads — total number of comments, diversity of comment types (questions, testimonials, long-form opinions), like-to-comment ratio, commenter account quality (age, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, and any repeated/similar phrasing that indicates inauthenticity. If many comments are similar emoji-only or short generic replies from new accounts, that would raise the fakeness score and lower suitability for advertising." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; lightweight engagement that increases visible activity but provides no substantive feedback for advertisers." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three laughing emojis (😂😂😂). This is a low-information, reactive comment that likely indicates the viewer found the post amusing. Emoji-only comments are common and often genuine, but they provide almost no signal about user intent, buying interest, or audience demographics. Given this single example: - Engagement quality is low (no text, no product-related sentiment). - Authenticity is plausible but uncertain (bots sometimes post emojis; however, most emoji reactions are organic). - Not sufficient evidence to judge the influencer's audience quality for advertising. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, overall engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), comment diversity (questions, testimonials, tagging), follower growth history, and audience demographics before making an ad-buy decision. Based on this single emoji comment, the post shows minimal actionable engagement for advertisers, so proceed cautiously." }

Text: Ach 😆… Das kenne ich. 😆

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Relatable / recognition with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal recognition and amusement; signals relatability and light positive engagement rather than purchase intent or promotional endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short, colloquial German comment was provided: \"Ach 😆… Das kenne ich. 😆\" (\"Ah… I know this.\"). It reads as a genuine, low-effort reaction expressing recognition and amusement. As a standalone data point it indicates some organic, relatable engagement from at least one follower, but it carries no commercial intent, no product endorsement, and provides no signal about audience purchasing behavior or campaign receptiveness. The sample is far too small to judge overall comment authenticity or influencer-quality metrics (engagement rate, audience demographics, repeated commenter patterns, bot-like repetition). For advertising feasibility, this single comment is neither a strong positive nor a negative: it slightly supports the influencer having a relatable connection with followers but is insufficient evidence for reliable ad targeting or conversion expectations. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (50–200), check likes-to-followers ratio, frequency of similar short replies, commenter profiles for real accounts vs. bots, and presence of genuine conversation or questions indicating intent." }

Text: Moment 2007???? Meine Tochter ist 2017 geboren, das kann nicht sein 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Correction / clarification (genuine follower)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Point out a factual inconsistency in the post (year), express mild disbelief/humor, signal engagement and attentiveness." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is in German and reads: \"Moment 2007???? Meine Tochter ist 2017 geboren, das kann nicht sein 😂\" — a follower pointing out an apparent error in the post's stated year and reacting with laughter. This is likely an authentic user reaction (very low likelihood of being fake), serving to correct or question the content and engaging publicly. As evidence for influencer authenticity and ad-buy suitability it's mildly positive: an attentive, responsive follower is a good sign. However, this is only one comment — sample size is far too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience quality, engagement rate, presence of bots, or typical comment sentiment. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments (volume, diversity, timestamps), like-to-comment ratio, follower quality, repeated patterns of corrective/critical comments, and check for bot-like accounts or generic spam comments before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👏1989

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (laughing + clap)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement rather than informative feedback" }, { "type": "Numeric token ('1989')", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ambiguous — could be a birth year or personal marker, or a meaningless/spam-like token; provides little topical signal" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👏1989') is a low-effort, high-emotion reaction: repeated laughing emojis and a clap indicate amusement or approval, while the trailing '1989' is ambiguous (likely a birth year or personal tag, or possibly a meaningless token). This comment type supplies almost no substantive signal about product interest, message resonance, or purchase intent. Alone it is insufficient to judge audience authenticity; the repeated identical emojis raise a small suspicion of automated/templated responses, but the numeric token slightly increases the chance it's from a real person. Overall the comment is low informational value for advertising decisions. Recommendation: review larger sample of comments for diversity (text length, specificity, questions, brand/product mentions), check commenter account profiles (age, activity, follower quality), and look for patterns of many similar emoji-only comments or repeated numeric tokens which would increase fakeness concerns." }

Text: Liebe deine Videos ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation for content; provides social proof and positive sentiment toward the creator." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“Liebe deine Videos ❤️”) is a short, positive, generic compliment in German. As a standalone data point it signals some audience appreciation but is weak evidence of a robust, engaged community. Short generic praise can be authentic (a real follower) or low-effort/bot engagement; given the lack of context and only one comment, I rate fakeness as low-to-moderate likelihood (20) with moderate confidence. For advertising decisions this comment is a minor positive signal but insufficient: you need volume, variety (questions, detailed feedback), commenter profile checks, like/comment ratios, timing patterns, and follower quality before trusting engagement metrics. Overall I rate the post’s comment-driven ad-feasibility score at 35/100 (moderate-to-low) with moderate confidence due to the extremely limited sample." }

Text: Wie mir gestern Abend plötzlich bewusst wurde das ich meinen Führerschein schon seit 20 Jahren habe.. Ich dachte mir.. neee das kann nicht sein 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "relatable personal anecdote / humorous", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express relatability and amusement; engage the poster and other followers; provide social proof of a genuine, emotionally engaged follower." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a casual, personal anecdote delivered with humor and an emoji. It reads like an authentic follower reaction (no promotional language, no repeating/generic praise, no links or tags). Tone and structure (first-person, small surprise, emoji) are consistent with organic engagement rather than bot-generated or paid comments. Based on this one sample, fakeness is low (5/100) with reasonably high confidence that this particular comment is genuine. For advertising-purchase feasibility, this comment is a positive signal: it indicates an engaged, relatable audience receptive to lifestyle, personal-story, or everyday-product ads. However, this assessment is limited by the tiny sample size — a single comment cannot prove the overall authenticity or value of the influencer's audience. I recommend analyzing a larger set of comments (look for repetition, timing clusters, account profiles, comment likes), checking follower-to-engagement ratios, audience demographics, and other engagement metrics (story views, saves, DMs) before making a buy decision." }

Text: Mir gehts genau so……….

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "empathetic / personal agreement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressing shared feeling or solidarity with the post (engagement, relatability)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short German comment was provided: \"Mir gehts genau so……….\" (\"I feel the same\"). This reads as a genuine, context-dependent reaction expressing empathy or agreement and likely aims to show solidarity and increase visible engagement. It is brief and not overtly promotional or formulaic, so the likelihood of it being fake is low but not negligible given the limited sample. Because this analysis is based on one comment only, confidence is limited. For influencer advertising feasibility, this single comment provides almost no reliable signal about overall audience quality: you need more data (many comments, diversity of comment types, timestamps, commenter profiles, follower-to-commenter overlap, presence of specific/product-related comments, replies and conversation depth, and ratios of generic vs detailed comments). Recommendation: collect a larger comment sample (50–200 recent comments), evaluate commenter accounts for authenticity, check engagement consistency across posts, and look for organic indicators (specific references, varied language, question-and-response threads) before making ad-buy decisions." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement or approval; low-effort engagement that increases visible comment count but provides no substantive feedback or intent (e.g., no purchase intent)" } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is extremely small (a single comment: three '😂' emojis). That comment type is common for genuine viewers responding quickly and casually, but it is also the kind of low-effort content that can be produced by bots or purchased engagement. On its own this comment provides minimal signal about audience quality, authenticity, or conversion potential. Recommendation: do not base an advertising buy on this single data point. For a reliable influencer assessment, collect a larger sample of comments and metrics (comment diversity and length, conversational replies, commenter account quality, timing patterns, likes per comment, follower-to-engagement ratio, presence of brand-related comments, and any sudden bursts of similar replies). Based on this one emoji comment, the likelihood of fakery is moderate-to-low but uncertain, and the suitability for advertising is low until more data is available." }

Text: Marmeladenglasmoment so real

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/relatable_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a relatable emotional reaction to the content (engagement/peer resonance). Likely genuine user comment referencing a specific idea/meme ('Marmeladenglasmoment')." }, { "type": "generic_compliment", "count": 0, "purpose": "Generic praise or emoji-only engagement; none observed in the provided sample." }, { "type": "promotional/spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "Comments pushing products/links or obvious spam; none observed." }, { "type": "bot-like/repetitive", "count": 0, "purpose": "Short, repetitive, templated comments typical of bots; none observed." }, { "type": "question/request", "count": 0, "purpose": "Requests for information or calls to action (e.g., 'where is this from?'); none observed." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Marmeladenglasmoment so real') appears authentic: it uses a specific phrase in (likely) German, expresses a personal/relatable reaction rather than generic praise or promotional content, and does not match common bot/spam patterns. Based on that single sample the fakeness level is low (15/100) with moderate confidence (65/100). However, the dataset here is extremely small (one comment), so conclusions for advertising feasibility are very limited. The overall suitability score of 55/100 reflects that this single genuine-seeming comment is a positive signal but is insufficient to assess overall audience quality. Recommended next steps before an ad buy: gather a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, examine comment diversity and repetition, check commenter profiles for real follower counts and posting history, compare engagement rate vs follower count, and scan for coordinated or inorganic behavior (repeated phrases, mass-liking accounts, sudden spikes). If subsequent analysis shows many comments of this authentic, context-specific type from real-looking accounts, the influencer would be more suitable for advertising." }

Text: Hylaron

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "ambiguous single-word comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Likely a short mention (brand/product name) or low-effort spam/bot output. Offers no conversational content, endorsement, or question — minimal genuine engagement signal." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment ('Hylaron') was provided. It is a single, context-free token that could be (a) a brand/product mention, (b) a misspelling of 'hyaluron' (hyaluronic), (c) a user name, or (d) generic bot/spam output. Single-word comments are commonly produced by low-effort users or automated accounts and provide little evidence of authentic audience interest. Given the lack of surrounding context (no likes on the comment shown, no replies, no conversational cues, no emojis), the comment should be treated as low-quality engagement until further profile-level checks are done. For influencer ad-purchase decisions this one comment is insufficient and weakens perceived organic engagement — recommend investigating commenter account(s), frequency of similar comments across posts, timing patterns, follower quality, comment diversity, and overall engagement ratios before committing to spend." }

Text: *Ehemann der Schwägerin genauso 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/relatable reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express humor/relatability by referencing a real-life person (sister-in-law's husband). Likely from an acquaintance or follower, serving to engage and add social proof." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Ehemann der Schwägerin genauso 😂' is specific and context-dependent (mentions a familial relation) and uses an emoji — characteristics more consistent with a genuine follower or someone who personally relates to the post rather than a generic bot or paid promotional comment. There are no obvious signs of templated praise, call-to-action, or marketing language. However, the sample size is extremely small (one comment), so any inference about the influencer's overall audience authenticity or ad suitability is limited. For advertising decisions: this comment indicates at least some authentic, engaged followers, but you should review a larger set of comments, commenter profiles, and overall engagement rate to judge reach and audience quality before purchasing ads." }

Text: Nh anstatt ne 😱

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short reaction (short text + emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise/emotion and simple engagement; low-effort comment that signals attention but provides little substantive feedback. Could be genuine follower reaction or low-effort/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single, short and ambiguous comment is available: \"Nh anstatt ne 😱\". The content is low-information (possible typo or dialect), primarily emotional via the emoji. This pattern is common for quick, genuine reactions but also for low-effort or automated engagement; therefore fakeness risk is moderate-low (score 30) but confidence is limited. For advertising-feasibility, this isolated comment provides very weak evidence of an engaged, high-quality audience. Overall score (40) reflects that the comment shows some engagement but is insufficient to justify a confident buy decision. Recommended next steps: evaluate volume and variety of comments, like-to-follower ratio, comment authenticity across multiple posts, audience demographics, saves/shares, and account growth patterns before purchasing advertising or partnering." }

Text: Vermissung

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short single-word emotional/ambiguous", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses emotion or longing ('Vermissung' ~ 'missing'); minimal engagement or filler to increase visible comments; could be genuine sentiment or low-effort/bot comment" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided ('Vermissung'). That word (German for 'missing' / 'loss' or a near-typo) reads as an emotional, single-word reaction. With just one short comment there is very limited signal to judge authenticity or audience quality. The comment is not overtly promotional, contains no emojis or tags, and is ambiguous — which makes it plausible as a genuine quick reaction but also consistent with low-effort bot/farm comments. Given the tiny sample size, the fakeness assessment is low-to-moderate (25) but with limited confidence (30). For advertising feasibility the available evidence is insufficient; I give a cautious, below-mid overall score (40) reflecting uncertainty about real engagement and audience quality. Recommendation: analyze a larger set of recent comments, comment-to-like ratio, commenter account profiles (age, activity, follower counts), timing patterns, and any repeated identical comments across posts before making an ad-buy decision." }

Text: Ich hab noch nie Marmeladenglasmoment gehört und kann mir nix darunter vorstellen 🙈

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine confusion / question", "count": 1, "purpose": "seeking clarification about the term 'Marmeladenglasmoment' and engaging with the creator" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads: \"Ich hab noch nie Marmeladenglasmoment gehört und kann mir nix darunter vorstellen 🙈\" — the user says they've never heard the term and cannot picture what it means. This is likely a genuine, organic piece of engagement (low fakeness). Its purpose is informational/engagement: the commenter is asking implicitly for an explanation or context. For advertising feasibility: this comment signals that the concept used in the post may not be immediately understood by at least part of the audience, which reduces immediate promotional effectiveness. Because the sample is only one comment, overall assessment is tentative — recommend the influencer reply with a clear explanation to educate audience and prompt further, higher-quality engagement, and analyze a larger comment sample (and other engagement metrics: likes, saves, follower demographics) before making a buying decision." }

Text: In Hamburg: Kohldampf. 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/personal reaction with local reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Engagement — a lighthearted, location-specific reaction (mentions Hamburg and uses colloquial 'Kohldampf' + laughing emoji). Signals a natural follower response or inside joke, not a promotional call-to-action." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'In Hamburg: Kohldampf. 😂'. This reads as an organic, informal reaction: the commenter uses a German colloquialism for being hungry ('Kohldampf') and a laughing emoji, plus a location reference. Characteristics that suggest authenticity: specific local reference, natural language, no generic praise or marketing language, and an emoji that fits the tone. Given a single short comment, the fakeness risk is low (fakeness_score 10), but confidence is limited because there is too little data to rule out account farming or coordinated activity across other comments. \n\nFor advertising feasibility I gave a cautious overall score of 30. One contextually relevant, genuine-sounding comment is positive but insufficient to judge broader audience quality or campaign value. Key missing information: number of comments and likes, commenter profile (real or bot), diversity and sentiment of other comments, engagement rate relative to follower count, comment timing patterns, and presence of repeat/generic comments. Without those, the assessment must be conservative. \n\nRecommended next steps: collect a larger sample of recent comments, analyze commenter account ages/activity and follower counts, compute engagement rate and ratio of meaningful vs. generic comments, and check for patterns of repetitive language or emojis that indicate inauthentic engagement. Use that broader dataset to reassess advertising feasibility with higher confidence." }

Text: Bauchbewohner

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "ambiguous one-word personal comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "personal expression / short reaction — likely engagement indicating emotion or a reference (e.g., pregnancy, inside joke). Low informational value for evaluating authenticity or audience interest." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('Bauchbewohner') is available, which is ambiguous: German for 'belly inhabitant' and could reference pregnancy, a playful nickname, or an inside joke. With one short, context-free comment it is not possible to reliably judge comment authenticity or overall audience quality. The comment appears plausible as a genuine, spontaneous reaction, but the sample size and lack of user metadata (account age, follower count, comment timing, other comments) make this uncertain. For influencer advertising decisions this single comment is low-signal. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample (multiple posts, full comment lists, commenter profiles, like-to-comment ratios, temporal patterns and language consistency) before making purchasing decisions." }

Text: Warum Sculptra?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question/inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "product inquiry / engagement (seeking rationale for using Sculptra)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"Warum Sculptra?\" This reads as a genuine follower question asking why the influencer used or recommends Sculptra (a cosmetic product). It appears organic (no obvious bot language, generic praise, or promotional links). Because there is only one comment, the sample is too small to confidently assess overall comment authenticity or audience quality for ad targeting. Tentative conclusions: (1) The comment indicates active product curiosity which is valuable for advertising related to Sculptra or similar treatments. (2) However, low comment volume prevents robust judgement of engagement rate, audience relevance, or prevalence of fake/bot comments. (3) Before purchasing ads, request a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, engagement rate metrics, follower demographics, and examples of past sponsored post performance to better evaluate suitability." }

Text: Schwiemu 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine/organic reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter (emoji + colloquial word); likely an inside joke or friendly response to the post content." }, { "type": "Spam/promotional", "count": 0, "purpose": "No promotional links, tags, or calls-to-action present." }, { "type": "Bot-like/generic emoji", "count": 0, "purpose": "Although emojis are present, the specific text ('Schwiemu') suggests context-specific language rather than generic bot output." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears organic and expresses amusement—most consistent with a real follower or acquaintance reacting to the post. However, with only one comment provided, the sample size is too small to judge overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. The low fakeness score reflects the comment's contextual specificity and natural tone, but confidence is moderate because bots can sometimes mimic such patterns and because one comment is insufficient evidence. For advertising feasibility, this single data point is weak: recommend reviewing a larger set of comments, overall comment-to-follower engagement rate, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), and other signals (like comment timestamps, repetition, and language patterns) before deciding. Based solely on this comment, the post shows minimal engagement and does not provide strong support for a purchase decision." }

Text: Mein Männe/Menne 😱

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal/affectionate reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration or affection for the subject (praise/identification), short emotional engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Single short German-language comment 'Mein Männe/Menne 😱' reads as a personal, emotional reaction (\"my man/my hubby\") with a surprised emoji. Indicators of authenticity: language specificity, casual/slang-like spelling, and a relational phrase that suggests a real follower. Indicators of possible inauthenticity are minimal here (short generic comments and emoji can be used by bots), but given the phrasing the balance favors a genuine reaction. However, this is one isolated comment — sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall audience authenticity. For ad-buy decisions, request a larger sample of comments, check the commenter(s) profile(s) (account age, activity, follower/following ratio, comment history), look for repetition of similar short comments across posts, timing patterns, and language diversity. Based on this single comment alone, the conversation looks plausibly organic, but confidence is limited; further comment-level and account-level analysis is recommended before committing to advertising." }

Text: Göttergatte /GöGa

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/familiar (humorous nickname)", "count": 1, "purpose": "social engagement / humor / addressing or referencing a spouse (informal remark)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Göttergatte /GöGa' is German colloquial shorthand for 'husband' (a playful nickname). It reads as a brief, informal, personal remark rather than promotional content, spam, or bot-like text. Fakeness risk appears low for this comment specifically, but the sample size (one short comment) is too small to draw robust conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising feasibility: this comment provides little evidence of interested or purchase-intent audience engagement (no product-related discussion, questions, or endorsements). Recommendation: obtain a larger, time-stamped set of comments, analyze comment diversity, commenter profiles, like-to-comment ratios, and recurring commenters before making an advertising purchase decision. Based only on this data point, authenticity looks plausible but insufficient for a confident ad-buy endorsement." }

Text: Bonus - Mama/ Papa 😱 oder dann das Pendant BauchMama, das ist wild... 😮

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine emotional/reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise and react to post content (uses emojis, informal phrasing, references variants/terms). Indicates organic engagement." }, { "type": "Promotional/spam/bot-like", "count": 0, "purpose": "No evidence of promotional language, links, generic praise, or repetitive/bot-like structure." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears organic and low-likelihood fake. It uses language and emojis typical of a real follower reacting (surprise, casual phrasing, specific term 'BauchMama'), rather than generic or promotional copy-paste content. Indicators of authenticity: language specificity, context-related content, punctuation and emoji use. Limitations: assessment is based on a single comment — not enough data to judge overall community quality or detect coordinated inauthentic behavior. For influencer ad buy decisions, this isolated comment is mildly positive (shows some genuine engagement), but you need volume and diversity of similar authentic comments, commenter profile checks (follower count, activity, account age), engagement rate, and comment-to-like ratio to conclude suitability. Recommendation: request a larger sample of recent comments and commenter profiles before committing significant ad spend." }

Text: Aktueller Trend auf Insta: Sorry, ich habe gelogen. Und dabei steht da nie was vom Lügen, sondern nur ein paar Offenbarungen 🤔

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "opinion / critique (engagement)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a critical observation about a platform trend; aims to comment and provoke thought or agreement rather than promote or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, natural-language observation in German about an Instagram trend: \"Sorry, I lied...\" followed by a note that posts are framed as \"revelations\" rather than admissions of lying. Tone is reflective/skeptical and includes an emoji, which is typical of genuine human replies. There are no hallmarks of bot/spam behavior (no links, repetitive copy-paste patterns, promotional language, or generic praise). That supports a low fakeness score (15) with moderate-high confidence because while the comment appears authentic, one short sample limits certainty. For advertising feasibility: this comment indicates an audience that notices platform trends and responds thoughtfully — a potentially engaged, media-literate follower. However, a single comment is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity, sentiment distribution, or audience quality. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments (volume, diversity of commenters, account metadata, timing patterns, like counts on comments) before making ad-buy decisions. Given the limited input, an overall suitability score of 60 reflects mild positive signal (real engagement) but substantial uncertainty about scalability and representativeness." }

Text: 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only ('😍')", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive reaction / generic engagement to the post; low informational value; often used to signal approval or attraction and to boost visible engagement metrics" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a heart-eyes emoji. Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine micro-engagement from followers, but they are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or automated/bot accounts. With one short emoji there is very little signal about audience quality, intent, or interest in purchases. Given this minimal data, there is a moderate suspicion of low-quality or non-actionable engagement (hence a moderate fakeness score). For advertising-feasibility decisions this is weak evidence of an engaged, purchase-ready audience. Actionable next steps: obtain the full comment set for the post, commenter account profiles (activity, follower counts, posting history), timestamps (to detect bursty/bot-like timing), like-to-comment ratios, and reach/engagement trends across multiple posts before making a buying decision." }

Text: 🥹❄️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive emotion/affection or a quick reaction; signals engagement but provides little qualitative information for advertisers." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only reaction (🥹❄️❤️). This type typically indicates a positive, emotional response but carries very low informational value about audience intent, product interest, or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers or easily produced by low-effort bot accounts. Given just one comment, I assess a low-to-moderate probability of being fake (fakeness_score 20) but with limited confidence (40) because there is insufficient context (no commenter profile, timing, volume of similar comments, or other engagement signals). Overall suitability for advertising purchase based on this comment alone is low (overall_score 30) because it does not demonstrate meaningful interest, influence, or qualified audience engagement; confidence in that assessment is moderate-low (35). Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter account metadata (follower counts, activity, language), engagement rate, reply behavior, and like-to-comment ratios to make a robust advertising decision." }

Text: ❄️☃️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (non-verbal) comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive/seasonal emotion or brief approval; increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: three emojis (❄️☃️❤️). This is a positive, low-effort reaction consistent with holiday/winter sentiment (snowflake, snowman) plus a heart indicating approval. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers as quick reactions, but they are also commonly produced by engagement pods and low-quality/bot accounts because they are generic and easy to automate. With a single comment and no commenter metadata (account age, follower count, posting history, comment timestamps), the signal is weak.\n\nAssessment: the comment shows positive sentiment but very low informational value for advertiser evaluation — it does not indicate interest, intent, or detailed audience engagement. The fakeness score is moderate (40) because emoji-only comments carry a notable false-positive risk but are not definitive proof of inauthenticity. The overall suitability score for advertising based on this comment alone is below average (45) because it suggests superficial engagement; more data is required (volume of comments, proportion of substantive comments, commenter profile quality, like/save rates, timing patterns) before making a confident buy decision. Recommended next steps: audit a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter accounts for authenticity signals, check engagement rate vs. follower count, and look for patterns of repeated identical comments or rapid bursts that would indicate automation." }

Text: ❄️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only", "count": 1, "purpose": "brief reaction/engagement — signals attention or approval but provides no substantive feedback; can be genuine low-effort engagement or used by bots to inflate metrics" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('❄️') was provided. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they may come from real followers expressing a simple reaction (seasonal cue, mood, or praise), or from automated/low-effort accounts used to boost visible engagement. With one data point there is insufficient evidence to judge audience authenticity or the influencer's suitability for advertising. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji comments are common in both genuine and fake engagement patterns; confidence is limited because more context is needed (commenter profile, comment timestamps, volume and variety of comments, likes on comments, follower quality, historical engagement). Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments (dozens to hundreds), inspect commenter accounts (age, posts, follower/following ratio, comment patterns), check overall engagement rate vs. follower count, and run bot-detection heuristics before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: Man muss Prioritäten setzen 💉😂👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/sarcastic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "express a brief opinion with humor/emojis (engagement, reaction to post content), likely to provoke likes or additional casual replies" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"Man muss Prioritäten setzen 💉😂👍\" reads as a short, colloquial, likely genuine reaction (humor/sarcasm) rather than templated spam. The syringe emoji suggests the post may reference vaccination, injections, or medical/beauty procedures; the comment frames the action as a prioritization choice and uses laughing and thumbs-up emojis to signal lighthearted approval or teasing. With only one comment provided there is very low signal for judging audience authenticity or commercial value. This single, natural-looking comment modestly indicates some engaged viewers, but it is insufficient to conclude broad genuine engagement or to justify advertising spend on its own. Recommend analyzing a larger comment sample, commenter account metadata (age, follower count, prior activity), time distribution, like-to-comment ratios, and language variety before making an ad-purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; low informational value. Could be genuine quick engagement from a follower or low-effort/bot interaction used to inflate engagement metrics." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a string of laughing emojis (😂...): a low-information, reaction-only comment. Emoji-only replies are common and can be genuine (real followers reacting quickly) but are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or engagement-boosting bots. With only one comment provided, signal is very limited — there is no evidence of conversational replies, specific praise/critique, questions, or purchase intent, all of which are more valuable for assessing influencer suitability for advertising. Given the limited sample, I rate the comments as somewhat likely to be low-effort/fake (fakeness_score 55) but with moderate uncertainty. Overall assessment for ad-purchase feasibility based solely on this comment is low (35) because comment quality is poor and offers no evidence of an engaged, relevant audience. To improve confidence, analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check commenter profiles for authenticity (account age, follower counts, posting history), look for recurring identical comments across posts, and measure likes-to-comments ratios and variation in comment content." }

Text: Großartig!!!👏🏼🤣🤣🤣 wann kann ich anfangen? 👍🏼🎉

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Enthusiastic support / conversion intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reinforcement and expressed willingness to participate or start (signals potential conversion interest and social proof)." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment is short, colloquial German with several emojis and a direct question ('when can I start?'), which reads as a genuine, engaged follower expressing interest rather than a generic or templated bot reply. No obvious giveaway signs of automation (no link, no repeated marketing phrases, natural punctuation and emoji use). However, assessment is limited by sample size: one comment cannot establish overall audience authenticity. For advertising feasibility, this comment is a small positive signal (shows intent and enthusiasm) but insufficient alone to recommend purchase. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter’s profile (age, activity, follower/following ratio, comment history), check volume and diversity of other comments, look for patterns of repetitive phrasing across posts, and evaluate overall engagement rate before making a buying decision." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (hearts)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/support; low-effort engagement that increases visible activity but provides no substantive feedback. Could be from a genuine follower, casual viewer, or automated/outsourced engagement." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment consisting of repeated heart emojis. This is a low-information, positive reaction indicating supportive sentiment but not meaningful engagement (no questions, product interest, or specific praise). Emoji-only comments are commonly used by genuine followers for quick positive feedback but are also typical of low-effort engagement tactics (bots or purchased comments). Given only one comment to analyze, the signal is weak. The moderate fakeness score reflects the possibility of either genuine casual engagement or automated/paid activity; confidence is limited because the sample is extremely small. For advertising-purchase feasibility: this single low-content comment does not demonstrate a reliably engaged or valuable audience. I recommend examining a larger sample of recent posts for comment diversity, reply rates, the profiles of commenters (age, follower counts, authenticity), timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios before making a purchase decision. Additional red flags would include many similar emoji-only comments from new or low-profile accounts, high comment volume with generic content, or sudden spikes in engagement." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "brief expression of amusement/positive affect; serves as lightweight engagement signal but provides no substantive feedback. Such comments can be genuine quick reactions or part of low-effort engagement (bots/engagement pods) depending on broader patterns." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of three laughing emojis was provided. This is a low-information, lightweight engagement: it shows some audience interaction but gives no insight into audience quality, sentiment beyond mild amusement, or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are common in organic interactions but are also frequently produced by bots, mutual-like/comment groups, or users seeking visibility with minimal effort. Given the single example and lack of context (no commenter account details, timing, frequency, or additional comments), there is insufficient evidence to declare the comment set authentic or fake. For an advertising buy decision, this sample is weak: recommend collecting a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, checking commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios, and looking for repetitive/emojified patterns before relying on this influencer. Current assessment: low-to-moderate risk of inauthentic engagement but high uncertainty, so proceed cautiously and request more data." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only / low-effort", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or quick reaction; low informational value and often used to boost visible engagement without substantive interaction." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided and it consists solely of laughing emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can represent a genuine quick reaction from a real follower or be part of low-effort/farmed engagement often seen with fake/bot accounts. Because the sample is a single, contextless comment, the fakeness assessment is uncertain. Based on this single comment the comment stream provides very little evidence of high-quality, audience-driven conversation, so it is not a reliable indicator to approve ad spend. Recommended next checks before a purchase decision: review the full comment set for diversity and conversational replies, inspect commenter profiles (followers, activity, avatar, bios), check timing patterns (many comments posted in short bursts), compare comment-to-like ratio and historical follower growth, and request audience demographics or reach metrics from the influencer. With more data these scores should be updated." }

Text: GaLiGrü 💗

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/affectionate", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressing affection or support (short, idiosyncratic text with heart emoji — likely a fan/friend-style engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment was provided: \"GaLiGrü 💗\". This looks like a personalized/colloquial expression (possibly a nickname, stylized name, or inside reference) accompanied by a heart emoji. It is not a generic promotional phrase or repeated spammy template, which slightly favors authenticity. However, with a single comment there is very limited signal: we cannot assess patterns such as repeated identical comments, commenter account quality, timing, language distribution, or volume — all needed to judge audience authenticity for ads. Given the brevity and uniqueness of the string, I estimate a relatively low probability of it being fake (fakeness_score 30), but confidence is limited (40) due to the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility I give a cautious, below-mid score (40) because one isolated comment does not demonstrate engaged, authentic, scalable audience; confidence in that overall assessment is low (30). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments (100+), check commenter profiles for real account signals (profile picture, followers, posting history), look for repeated/templated comments, review engagement rate vs. follower count, and inspect comment timestamps for inorganic patterns." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive reaction; low-effort engagement that signals emotion but provides no substantive feedback or endorsement. Could be genuine follower reaction or generic/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists solely of repeated laughing emojis. That yields very limited signal. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers reacting quickly, but they are also commonly produced by bots or engagement farms because they are low-effort and highly repeatable. With a single example, authenticity is ambiguous — hence a mid fakeness score with low confidence. For advertising decisions this type of comment has low value: it does not indicate purchase intent, audience relevance, or thoughtful endorsement. Recommendation: evaluate a larger sample of recent comments (50–200), inspect commenter accounts for profile completeness, posting history, follower ratios and repeated identical comments across posts, check comment timestamps and reply chains, and request the influencer's audience demographics and engagement metrics before making ad-buy decisions." }

Text: Überzeugt😜

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "brief positive endorsement / reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval or enthusiasm (low-effort engagement using an emoji); social signaling to the poster and other followers." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Überzeugt😜' reads as a short, positive reaction — roughly 'Convinced' or 'Impressed' with a playful emoji. It looks like low‑effort genuine engagement (a follower or acquaintance quickly signalling approval) rather than a generic promotional phrase typical of bots. However, with only one comment provided the assessment is highly uncertain. Indicators supporting authenticity: personalized language (German), emoji use, not a templated praise phrase. Limitations: extremely short sample size, no commenter profile data, no timing or like metadata, and no pattern analysis across other comments. For advertising decisions, this single comment is a weak positive signal but insufficient alone. Recommended next steps: examine a larger sample of recent comments for diversity and repetition, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts vs. bots, check engagement rate (likes+comments relative to follower count), look for repetitive phrasing or comment clusters, and analyze temporal posting patterns to detect inorganic spikes." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 das BESTE Team aller Zeiten ❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / fan support (emoji-heavy)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive reinforcement (social proof). Uses emojis to amplify enthusiasm." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 das BESTE Team aller Zeiten ❤️❤️❤️❤️\". This is a short, highly positive, emoji-rich fan praise message in German. Signals: multiple laughing and heart emojis, all-caps superlative, no links or promotional content. Likely purpose is to show enthusiasm/support and boost visible engagement. Fakeness assessment: low-to-moderate risk (score 20) because the comment is generic and emotive—patterns that can appear in both genuine fans and low-effort purchased comments—but there is insufficient evidence from a single comment to declare it fake. Confidence in that judgement is limited (40) due to lack of context (number of comments, repetition across posts, commenter account quality, timing). Overall advertising-feasibility assessment: neutral-to-cautious (45) — this single comment is positive but not a strong indicator of authentic, engaged audience. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments and commenter profiles (look for repeated identical comments, diversity of language/phrasing, follower/following ratios, comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios) before deciding on ad spend. If most comments show similar emoji-heavy, generic praise from low-quality accounts, reduce confidence in the influencer’s audience quality; if comments are varied and conversational, the influencer is more likely suitable for ads." }

Text: LG hat mich gekillt 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "reaction (amusement) with brand mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive engagement — commenter reacts to the post content (saying 'LG hat mich gekillt' = 'LG killed me' as slang for 'that was hilarious'), with emojis reinforcing emotional response. Not explicitly promotional." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears to be a genuine, emoji-rich reaction expressing amusement; its reference to 'LG' makes it specific rather than a generic bot-like compliment. Fakeness risk is low-to-moderate (score 20) but confidence is limited because this is only one comment. For advertising decisions this single positive reaction is mildly favorable but insufficient evidence of authentic, consistent engagement. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition/generic text, check commenter profiles (follower counts, activity, prior interactions), examine comment timing patterns and like-to-comment ratios, and look for clusters of identical comments across posts to detect inorganic engagement before committing budget." }

Text: Wie ich nach einem jahrelangen Studium aus einem ganz anderen Fachbereich überlege MFA zu werden, um mich endlich bei euch bewerben zu können 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal anecdote / aspirational", "count": 1, "purpose": "User shares a personal situation (considering a career change), expresses intent to apply to the account owner and uses humor/emoji to create rapport and positive engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears organic and genuine: it references a specific personal circumstance (years of study in another field), expresses intent to engage with the account owner (apply), and uses humor (laughing emoji) which suggests authentic human tone. There are no signs of generic spam, emoji-stuffed bot phrasing, or off-topic promotional links. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw robust conclusions about the overall authenticity of the account's audience or engagement quality. For advertising-purchase decisions: this comment is a small positive signal (shows real interest and affinity), but you should analyze a larger set of comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower ratio, posting history), timing patterns, and comment-to-like ratios before making a buy decision." }

Text: Ihr habt eine DM ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "DM notification / outreach", "count": 1, "purpose": "To inform the account that the commenter has sent a direct message (likely outreach for collaboration, customer inquiry, or private follow-up). Also serves as light public engagement to prompt a visible response." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: 'Ihr habt eine DM ❤️' (German: 'You have a DM ❤️'). This is most likely a genuine outreach-type comment rather than generic bot spam — it signals the commenter wants a private conversation (brand/agency outreach, partnership inquiry, or customer follow-up). The heart emoji adds a human tone. However, a single comment is an extremely small sample and provides very limited signal about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Potential concerns: if many comments across the post or profile are identical (same phrasing/emoji), that pattern could indicate coordinated or inorganic activity (e.g., outreach bots or paid commenters). Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments (50–200), commenter account metadata (follower counts, account age, activity), comment timestamps, and overall engagement metrics (likes, saves, view rates). For advertising purchase decisions, do not rely on this single comment — perform a fuller audit (look for repeated messages, generic one-word comments, mismatched follower/engagement ratios, and account authenticity) before proceeding." }

Text: Warum nur bin ich keine MFA🤷🏼‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/aspirational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses envy or wishful identification with the subject (engagement and social bonding). Uses emoji to convey tone." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"Warum nur bin ich keine MFA🤷🏼‍♀️\" (German: \"Why am I not an MFA🤷🏼‍♀️\"). This reads as a genuine, personal reaction—likely a follower expressing wistful envy or admiration related to the post's subject (for example, the subject's job/title, lifestyle, or status as an MFA). There are no hallmarks of bot/spam behavior (no links, generic praise, repeated patterns, or hashtag stuffing). Given the one-off, context-dependent nature of the message, the assessed fakeness is low (10/100) with moderate confidence. However, the sample size is far too small to draw reliable conclusions about the commenter base or overall authenticity of the post's engagement. For advertising feasibility: this single authentic-seeming comment is a positive signal for real follower interaction, but it is insufficient on its own. Recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, timestamps, like counts, follower audit (follower growth, follower-to-like ratio), comment diversity, and commenter profile checks before deciding on ad purchase. Current overall assessment is cautious (40/100) with low confidence due to limited data." }

Text: Der Obstkorb überzeugt immer ☝️😂🫡

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive endorsement / casual praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval of the product shown (social proof / endorsement); engage with the post in a light, friendly way" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"Der Obstkorb überzeugt immer ☝️😂🫡\" — short, product-specific and positive with casual emojis. This pattern is consistent with an organic follower praising a recurring product (the 'fruit basket') rather than a generic spam phrase, so likelihood of fakery is low but not zero. Because the sample size is one, confidence is limited. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single comment is mildly positive evidence of genuine engagement and product interest, but it is insufficient on its own. Recommend broader checks: comment volume and diversity, commenter account age/activity, repetition of identical phrases across posts, like-to-follow ratio, and temporal posting patterns before confirming audience authenticity and purchase viability." }

Text: 🤣🤣 Meritas Blick🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "reaction / emoji with personalized remark", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement and draw attention to the subject's facial expression (informal engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('🤣🤣 Meritas Blick🤣') reads like a genuine, informal reaction from a follower or acquaintance: it uses emojis, a colloquial phrasing in German, and references the subject ('Merita'), which all suggest organic engagement rather than a bot or promotional comment. There is no link, call-to-action, or generic praise typically seen in fake engagement. However, this is only one short comment — the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall authenticity of the account's audience or the general comment population. For an advertising purchase decision, this isolated comment is mildly supportive (shows some real, amused engagement) but insufficient evidence of consistent, high-quality audience interaction. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments for diversity and depth, inspect commenter profiles for genuine accounts and follower counts, check like-to-follower and comment-to-follower ratios, and review timing patterns to detect inorganic spikes." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort expression of approval/support. Increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback; can be genuine fan response or generic/bot interaction." } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is extremely small (one comment: \"👏👏👏\"). Emoji-only applause is a common, low-effort engagement type that both real followers and automated/generic accounts use. Given only this single instance, authenticity cannot be judged reliably. Likely interpretations: 1) a genuine casual positive reaction from a follower; 2) generic/automated engagement intended to inflate metrics. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji-only comments are more ambiguous than personalized comments. For advertising-feasibility decisions, comments like this offer minimal evidence of genuine, engaged audience interest. Recommend obtaining a larger comment sample across multiple recent posts and checking: commenter profiles (age, follower ratio, posting history), repetition of identical comments/emojis across posts, comment-to-like ratios, timing patterns, and presence of substantive, specific comments. Based on the current evidence, do not rely on this post's comments alone to approve ad spend — treat as insufficient signal." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 0, "fakeness_confidence": 0, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 0, "comment_types": [], "interpretation": "Невозможно провести анализ — вы не прислали сами комментарии. Пожалуйста, предоставьте один из вариантов: 1) полный список комментариев (текст комментария, имя пользователя, время/дата, количество лайков у комментария), 2) скриншоты комментариев, либо 3) выборку верхних ~50 комментариев и, если возможно, метаданные аккаунтов (число подписчиков, подписок, постов).\n\nЧто полезно включить для корректной оценки: короткие односложные комментарии (например \"🔥\", \"Love\"), повторяющиеся фразы, ссылки/емодзи, комментарии с продажей/промо-кодами, язык комментариев, наличие ботов-профилей (нет аватарки, бессмысленный ник, 0-5 постов), распределение лайков по комментариям и временная плотность (всплеск комментариев за короткий промежуток). \n\nПосле получения комментариев я выполню: классификацию типов комментариев (похвала, вопросы, спам/промо, боты/поддельные, нейтральные/контекстные), оценку уровня поддельности (0–100) с указанием факторов, интерпретацию для принятия решения о покупке рекламы и итоговый скор и уверенность." }

Text: Es ist lange schon bewiesen dass mann bei Krebs Vitamin D braucht. Hautkrebs bekommt mann bei Vitamin D mangel. Viele Ärzte sind gegen diese Sonnenkremen.... Solange dein Körper nicht zu lange in der Sonne ist, ist alles okay 🌞

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 85, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Opinion / Health advice (misinformation)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal belief and gives health advice; attempts to persuade readers that vitamin D prevents cancer and that sunscreens are bad; spreads inaccurate medical claims." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a user-stated opinion offering health advice and contains clear medical inaccuracies (e.g., implying vitamin D deficiency causes skin cancer and that many doctors oppose sunscreens). This looks like genuine user-level misinformation rather than a neutral engagement or straightforward spam—tone is personal and emotive (includes emoji). Fakeness is high because the medical claims contradict mainstream scientific consensus. For advertising feasibility: this comment flags potential reputational risk for advertisers in health, skincare, or sun-protection categories—it could signal an audience that engages with or tolerates health misinformation about sun exposure and sunscreens. However, this assessment is based on one comment only; you should analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (bots vs. real accounts), engagement patterns, sentiment distribution, and follower authenticity before making a buy decision. Recommended next steps: collect a representative sample (50–200 comments), check for repeated text or timing patterns (bot signals), inspect top commenters' profiles for authenticity, and note prevalence of anti-sunscreen/misinformation narratives. If such narratives are common, treat the account as higher risk for ads related to medical/health claims." }

Text: verständlich.. dann könntest du dich aber an den gang setzen (für dich besser und für andere auch die am fenster gerne rausschauen)

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "constructive suggestion / mild criticism", "count": 1, "purpose": "express opinion and give practical advice (encourage the poster to change seating for their and others' benefit); not promotional or spam" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (German: \"verständlich.. dann könntest du dich aber an den gang setzen (für dich besser und für andere auch die am fenster gerne rausschauen)\") is a genuine-seeming, conversational response offering a suggestion — mildly critical but not hostile. It contains context-specific advice (sit in the aisle) and implies engagement with the post content. There are no markers of bot-like or promotional behavior (no links, emojis used manipulatively, generic praise, or brand mentions). Given this, the comment appears authentic (low fakeness). For influencer advertising feasibility: this kind of organic, topic-relevant engagement is positive, but a single comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or scale. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments for repetition patterns, timing, language variety, and accounts interacting to better assess authenticity and commercial suitability." }

Text: Reicht der Sonnenschutz für einen 8 Stunden Flug?!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question / product inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking about product performance (sunscreen) for a specific use case (8-hour flight) — seeks practical information and may indicate purchase/use intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a specific, context-rich question in German about whether the sunscreen is sufficient for an 8-hour flight. This kind of comment is typical of genuine user interest because it is specific (mentions flight duration) rather than generic praise, emoji or a short promotional phrase often seen in fake comments. Therefore fakeness is scored low (10), but confidence is moderate (65%) because one comment is a very small sample and cannot reveal broader patterns (e.g., mass-generic comments, timing clusters, or bot-like accounts).\n\nFor advertising-purchase feasibility: this comment shows product-relevant engagement, which is positive, but one comment alone is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or campaign effectiveness. The overall score is therefore modest (40) with moderate-low confidence (45%). To improve assessment, review: (1) more comments and their variety/tone, (2) commenter profiles (real accounts vs. bots), (3) comment timing and repetition patterns, (4) like-to-comment ratios and historical engagement rates, and (5) influencer audience demographics and previous ad performance. These data points will materially raise confidence and allow a reliable buy/no-buy recommendation." }

Text: Also im Cockpit gibt es wohl besondere Folien, die davor schützen sollen

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Informational / experiential", "count": 1, "purpose": "User shares knowledge or an observation related to the post (adds context or background)." }, { "type": "Promotional / spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "Attempts to sell, link out, or promote something (none present)." }, { "type": "Generic praise / short reaction", "count": 0, "purpose": "Short positive reactions or emojis that inflate apparent engagement (none present)." }, { "type": "Bot-like / irrelevant", "count": 0, "purpose": "Automated, off-topic, or repetitive comments (none present)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Also im Cockpit gibt es wohl besondere Folien, die davor schützen sollen' — 'Apparently there are special films in the cockpit that are supposed to protect against that') reads as a natural, informative remark. Language use (hedging word 'wohl') and topical specificity make it likely organic rather than bot-generated or promotional. However, one comment is insufficient to judge overall comment quality or community engagement. For influencer advertising decisions this indicates at best a small, engaged user who adds relevant information, but it does not demonstrate broad genuine interaction, sentiment trends, or audience responsiveness. Recommend requesting a larger sample of comments, per-post comment volume, like counts, follower demographics, and temporal patterns before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: Gute Info, aber ich lasse das Fenster trotzdem oben. Liebe die Aussicht

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal opinion / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses a personal preference and compliment (engagement), not promotional or spammy" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Gute Info, aber ich lasse das Fenster trotzdem oben. Liebe die Aussicht') is context-specific and conversational (mentions leaving the window open and liking the view), which points toward a genuine human response rather than an obvious bot/generic spam reply. However, one comment is an extremely small sample size: there is insufficient data to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising decisions, this single data point is weak evidence — recommend additional signals (total comment volume, comment diversity, commenter profiles, timing patterns, like counts, follower engagement rate, and repetition across posts) before concluding suitability for ad spend." }

Text: Ich überlege gerade das Material aus dem Flugzeugfenster bestehen ist ja Acrylglas in den meisten fällen. Soweit ich weiß absorbiert dies bis 300nm Wellenlänge, 380nm ist der volle UV-Schutz. Bedeutet es müsste ein Teilschutz vorhanden sein auch wenn er nicht bei 100% liegt oder ?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "technical question / genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks clarification and technical information about UV transmission of airplane/window materials; adds substantive engagement to the post rather than simple praise or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a technical question in German asking whether airplane window material (commonly acrylic) provides partial UV protection around 380 nm given that acrylic absorbs up to ~300 nm. This reads as a genuine, informed follower seeking clarification rather than a bot, spammer, or promotional account. There are minor technical imprecisions in the comment (commercial acrylic/PMMA typically blocks strongly below ~300–320 nm; many aircraft windows are multi-layered or coated and can block additional UVA), but the tone and content indicate real interest and topical engagement. For influencer-advertising feasibility: this comment is positive evidence of meaningful audience interaction (quality of comment is high), but the sample size is a single comment — not enough to conclude broadly about overall audience authenticity or engagement rate. Recommendation: analyze the full set of comments, engagement metrics (likes, comment rate), follower profile distribution, and recent comment patterns before purchase. Current overall assessment: moderate suitability (score 60) with moderate confidence due to limited sample." }

Text: Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical / skeptical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses skepticism or mild criticism of the phrase 'well aging' (likely calling out buzzwording/Anglicism); not promotional or bot-like." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘') reads as an organic, critical reaction to the wording used in the post (calling out the term 'well aging'). It appears human, context-aware and not promotional or automated. As a result there is a low fakeness signal, but confidence is limited by the extremely small sample size (one comment). For advertising-feasibility, this single data point is neutral-to-slightly-positive: it indicates an engaged audience that notices language and may react critically to buzzwords, which is useful for message alignment but not a red flag for bot activity. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments, assess overall sentiment distribution, engagement rates, commenter accounts (real followers vs. suspicious), and recurring themes before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question/suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask for clarification and offer a practical alternative (suggest booking an aisle seat); indicates engagement and critical/curious response rather than promotional intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?') is a context-specific, plausible human reaction: a concise question suggesting an aisle seat. It reads organic (no generic praise, no emojis or repetitive phrases typical of bots or paid comments). This indicates at least some authentic, engaged viewers who consider the post's content and logistical choices. However, with only one comment sample the confidence in global conclusions is limited. For advertising feasibility, this comment is a small positive signal for genuine engagement, but you should analyze a larger set of comments (volume, diversity, timing), commenter profiles (followers, recent activity), like-to-comment ratios, and presence of repetitive/generic comments before deciding. Rationale: low fakeness score because the comment is specific and relevant; moderate overall score because a single authentic comment is encouraging but insufficient to confirm reliable influencer engagement for ad spend." }

Text: Was hat das eine mit dem anderen zu tun hä?😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "confused/questioning reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses confusion about the post's content/relevance and lightly mocks with an emoji; seeks clarification or signals perceived mismatch." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Was hat das eine mit dem anderen zu tun hä?😂') is a short, conversational, context-specific reaction that questions the relationship between elements in the post and uses a laughing emoji to soften the tone. That pattern (direct, situational question plus emoji) is typical of genuine user engagement rather than templated or generic fake comments. However, assessment is limited because only one comment is available — you cannot infer overall audience quality, engagement authenticity, or brand-safety from this alone. For advertising feasibility: this comment indicates the audience pays attention and will call out irrelevant or confusing content, which can be useful for brand-aligned messaging, but you should request a larger sample (more comments, timing, like-to-comment ratios, commenter profiles) before making a buying decision." }

Text: Oha ich werd braun wenn ich fliege???😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/admiration and provide lightweight engagement (social proof); likely aims to boost visibility/engagement rather than start a conversation." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Oha ich werd braun wenn ich fliege???😍😍') is a brief, emotive reaction typical of genuine follower engagement: it contains informal language and emojis, no links, no hashtags, and no repetitive or promotional phrasing that would strongly indicate bot or purchased-comment behavior. However, it is generic and low-information, so while it likely is not fabricated, it contributes little to meaningful audience insight. Because you provided only one comment, this sample is too small to draw robust conclusions about the overall comment quality on the influencer's post. For advertising-feasibility decisions, evaluate a larger set of recent comments, commenter accounts (real profiles vs. throwaway/bot accounts), engagement rate vs. follower count, and look for patterns of repeated phrasing or mass generic replies. Based on this single comment alone: low likelihood of being fake, but overall evidence for authentic, engaged audience is insufficient — proceed with a deeper audit before purchasing advertising." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; signal low informational value and low engagement depth (quick/affective response rather than substantive feedback)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is present: a laughing emoji (\"😂\"). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers and from low-effort/bot accounts alike; they register as engagement but provide almost no insight into audience intent, sentiment beyond mild amusement, or purchase intent. Given the single data point, I assign a neutral fakeness score (50) with low confidence (30) because there is insufficient context (commenter account details, timing, volume of similar comments, like-to-comment ratio, or patterns across posts). For advertising feasibility the signal is weak: the comment shows some surface-level engagement but is low quality, so overall suitability for advertising is low (score 30) with modest confidence (35). Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter account authenticity (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), look for substantive comments, saves/shares, and audience demographics before making a buying decision." }

Text: Ein Flug ohne Fenster ist für mich kein richtiger Flug... Das schönste an so einem Flug ist diese traumhafte Aussicht auf die Welt von oben. Hoffentlich macht die das nicht auch bei ihren Kindern, wenn die mal aus dem Fenster schauen möchten 🙈. Und jaaa... Sie ist Ärztin und es mag ja vielleicht etwas für dran sein. Aber das gesamte Leben ist ein Risiko. Wenn man sich keinerlei Risiken mehr aussetzen möchte, dann muss man sich ein Leben lang im Keller verbarrikadieren und darf keinen Spaß und Freude mehr empfinden. Diese Einstellung "mir könnte dies und das passieren" nervt einfach nur... Leben und leben lassen.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 75, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "engaged critical personal opinion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disagreement with the influencer's behavior/choice, moral judgment about parenting and risk, and defend personal freedom; aims to persuade and vent frustration." } ], "interpretation": "The comment reads as a genuine, long-form personal reaction rather than generic praise or spam: it contains nuanced argumentation, an emoji, reference to specific behaviour (windowless flight), and a moral stance about parenting and risk. It signals engaged (negative) audience sentiment and a willingness to debate the influencer's choices. For advertising feasibility this is generally positive in that it shows real engagement and an invested audience, but the negative tone indicates potential divisiveness—brands sensitive to family/parenting or safety topics should review broader comment sentiment and post context before buying. Overall the comments appear authentic and engaged, not bot-driven, but monitor for volume of similar negative reactions before final ad decisions." }

Text: Es ist aber echt wichtig die Fensterblende offen zu lassen..... gegen die UV-Strahlung kann man sich eincremen

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Advice / Practical tip", "count": 1, "purpose": "To offer a practical suggestion (keep the blind open) and a related tip (use sunscreen) — short engagement with the post, possibly light humor or casual correction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, conversational German remark giving a practical tip about leaving the window blind open and using sunscreen against UV. It reads as organic user engagement rather than promotional or bot-like activity: no links, specific content, informal punctuation, and a plausible personal voice. Fakeness is rated low (10) with reasonably high confidence because the comment lacks hallmarks of inauthentic behavior; however, one comment is a very small sample so confidence is not maximal. For advertising feasibility this single comment is mildly positive (shows real user interaction) but insufficient to judge overall audience quality — overall score 50 reflects limited sample size. Recommend analyzing more comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, mutual interactions), likes on the comment, and comment timestamps to make a stronger determination before purchase." }

Text: Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal_opinion / conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal preference (saying 'Internal medicine is much more interesting'), likely to engage the poster or other commenters and stimulate discussion; not promotional or templated." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment analysis: The comment 'Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁' reads as a genuine, informal opinion. Use of context-specific content (a medical specialty) and playful emojis reduces the likelihood it is bot-generated or copy-paste spam. There is no promotional language, no URL, and no generic praise that commonly signals fake engagement. However, this is only one data point — you cannot reliably judge the overall authenticity of the account's audience or engagement from a single comment. For advertising feasibility, this comment is neutral-to-slightly-positive in quality (real engagement), but the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, look at comment/like ratios, follower growth patterns, commenter account quality (profiles, activity), and presence of repetitive or templated comments to build a more confident assessment." }

Text: Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/laughter; show spontaneous audience engagement and social reaction to post content (no promotion, no call-to-action)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single German-language comment provided: 'Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂' — an informal, idiomatic expression of amusement aimed at 'die Gastro' (the restaurant/food scene). It contains natural colloquial phrasing and multiple emojis, no links, tags, or repetitive patterns, which suggests genuine human reaction rather than bot/spam. However, the sample size is extremely small (one comment), so this provides only weak evidence about overall audience quality or sentiment. For advertising-buy decisions, comments like this are mildly positive (engaged, amused audience) but insufficient alone to judge reach, authenticity of follower base, conversion potential, or brand-safety. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, like/comment ratios, commenter profiles (account age, followers, activity), comment diversity, and engagement trends before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Reaction / expression of amusement; low informational value. Signals engagement but not substantive feedback; could be genuine low-effort follower reaction or generic bot-like engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: four laughing emojis. This is a low-information data point. Emoji-only comments commonly indicate casual engagement (amusement or approval) but are also used by bots and mass-engagement services because they are generic and easy to post. With only one example it's not possible to reliably determine authenticity or broader audience behavior. Given the scarcity of substantive comments, I judge the comment set as more likely genuine than definitively fake but with low confidence (fakeness_score: 25, confidence: 30). For advertising purchase decisions this evidence is insufficient — overall feasibility is low-moderate (score 30) because there is no sign of meaningful conversation, targeted interest, or varied genuine audience feedback. Recommended next steps before any ad spend: collect more comments and engagement metrics (number of comments, likes, comment diversity, timestamps), inspect commenter profiles for real accounts vs. low-activity or newly created accounts, check for repeated identical comments across posts, evaluate overall engagement rate relative to follower count, and review comment sentiment and conversion indicators. Only after that can a reliable advertising feasibility judgment be made." }

Text: Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive reaction / amusement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and engagement (social proof, emotional response)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂') is a natural-sounding, colloquial German reaction expressing strong amusement. It uses casual phrasing and multiple emojis, which are typical of organic user replies rather than templated promotional comments. However, this comment is purely emotive and provides no purchase intent, product feedback, or influencer-specific endorsement. Given only one comment, the data is insufficient to draw robust conclusions about audience authenticity or conversion potential. The low fakeness score reflects that this particular comment appears genuine, but the confidence is limited by the extremely small sample. For an advertising-feasibility decision, you should analyze a larger set of comments (variety of comment content, presence of questions about products/pricing, time distribution of comments), overall engagement rate, follower quality (follower:like ratio, follower growth patterns), and any repetitive/generic comment patterns that would indicate bot activity. Based on this single comment, the post shows some organic engagement but not enough actionable signal to recommend an ad spend without further analysis." }

Text: Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/expressive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration or emotional reaction to the content (praise/like). Likely a quick, genuine reaction intended to show approval or affection." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads \"Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍\" (German: \"obstetrics/midwifery\" or literally \"birth assistance\") plus heart‑eyes emojis. It appears to be a topical, positive reaction — either referring to childbirth content or using a concise, context‑specific term of praise. The use of a non‑generic word together with emojis suggests a human rather than an automated/bot reply, so fakeness is low. Confidence in that judgment is moderate because there is only one comment to analyze. Overall assessment for advertising feasibility is limited: one positive comment is encouraging but insufficient to judge audience quality or authenticity. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition/duplicated phrases, check commenter account profiles (age, activity, follower ratios), measure engagement rate across posts, and look for temporal clustering or many similar short emoji comments which could indicate inauthentic engagement." }

Text: Chirurgie ♥️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short topical/emoji comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive reaction or association (heart = approval); the word 'Chirurgie' (French for 'surgery') suggests either topical reference to medical/cosmetic surgery, a shorthand/inside reference, or a single-word endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment only — limited signal. The content is a one-word topical remark plus a heart emoji. Positive sentiment is clear, but intent and relevance are ambiguous: it could be a genuine follower expressing support or an off-topic/cryptic remark (or an automated short reply in some edge cases). Fakeness judged low-to-moderate (25) because the comment is not a generic marketing phrase and includes an emoji, but confidence is limited due to sample size and lack of commenter account context. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient to judge engagement quality or audience authenticity. Recommend collecting a larger sample of comments, checking commenter account age/follower patterns, repetition of similar comments, timestamp clustering, like-to-comment ratios, and overall comment diversity before making a buying decision." }

Text: Dermatologie?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Content clarification", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking whether the post relates to dermatology — seeks clarification of topic or professional category; indicates topical interest rather than promotional engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment ('Dermatologie?') is present. This is most likely a genuine, curiosity-driven inquiry from a real user rather than a spammy or promotional message; therefore fakeness risk is low (estimated 15/100) but confidence is limited because the sample size is one. The comment shows minimal engagement depth (no discussion, no praise, no call-to-action), so it provides weak evidence of an engaged audience for advertising decisions. Overall suitability for ad purchase is low-to-moderate (30/100) given the negligible comment volume and lack of positive/brand-aligned interaction. Recommend examining broader metrics before buying ads: total comment count and diversity, likes per post, comment-to-follower ratio, follower authenticity, reply quality, and audience demographics to make a reliable decision." }

Text: @corinnafeldmeier 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Mention/Tag + Emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Notify or draw attention of another user (sharing); express amusement. Low-content engagement that increases visible interaction but provides little purchase-intent signal. Could be genuine friend-tagging; occasionally used by bots/spam to increase reach." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: a user mention (@corinnafeldmeier) plus a laughing emoji. This is most consistent with someone tagging a friend to show them the post and signalling amusement. It is low-information engagement: it raises visible interaction metrics but does not indicate product interest or conversion likelihood. The comment shows low probability of being fake, though automated accounts sometimes post tags to increase reach — there is insufficient evidence to conclude that here. For advertising purchase decisions this single comment is a weak signal; you should examine overall comment volume, diversity of commenters, comment content (questions, mentions of product/price), likes, follower authenticity, engagement rate over multiple posts, and audience demographics before buying. Given the extremely limited sample, the assessment is tentative." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction and light engagement; low-information affirmation rather than substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two laughing emojis (\"😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are common and serve as low-effort engagement signals — they indicate some positive response but carry little informational value about audience intent, interest in products, or influence authenticity. Such comments can be genuine reactions from real followers, quick responses from casual viewers, or low-effort/bot-generated engagement; with only this example it is impossible to reliably distinguish. The moderate fakeness score reflects this ambiguity. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single emoji comment is weak evidence: it neither demonstrates strong, targeted audience interest nor high-quality, trust-building interactions (e.g., questions, personal stories, detailed praise). Recommended next steps before a buy decision: collect a larger sample of comments, analyze commenter accounts (follower counts, activity, profile completeness), check comment diversity (questions, mentions, tags), measure like-to-comment ratios and temporal patterns, and look for engagement from verified or repeat commenters. Based on the current tiny sample, I would not use this comment as positive proof of effective influencer engagement; treat the post as neutral-to-low quality signal pending further data." }

Text: Mein Lieblingsberuf. 👀 Der einzige Grund, warum ich in die Welt der Medizin gegangen bin.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Personal testimonial", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise/endorsement and personal influence — user expresses admiration and claims to have chosen a career path because of the person/content." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads as a direct compliment with a personal anecdote (\"The only reason I went into medicine\"). The emoji and claim of personal influence increase the likelihood it is genuine rather than a generic bot message. Fakeness is therefore low but not zero given limited sample size. However, one comment is insufficient to judge overall audience authenticity or ad-readiness. For advertising decisions you should (1) analyze a larger sample of comments for patterns (repetition, generic phrasing, account types), (2) inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history) to detect fake or farm accounts, and (3) check engagement rate, comment diversity and conversion examples. Based on this single comment, influence potential is present but evidence is weak — recommend further comment-level and profile-level checks before a purchase decision." }

Text: HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short reaction with emoji / inside-joke", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/affection and engage with the post (likely a personal or contextual reaction referencing content); increases visible engagement but does not promote a product or call to action." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣'. The message mixes German ('HNO kam zu spät' = 'ENT/ear–nose–throat came too late') with emojis showing affection and laughter. This reads as a brief, context-dependent, organic reaction or inside joke rather than a promotional, spammy, or templated comment. There is no mention of a brand, product, link, or repeated promotional phrasing. Given the single-sample input, the fakeness assessment is tentative: low probability of being fake or bot-generated, but confidence is limited due to the tiny sample size. For advertising-feasibility: this comment type indicates engagement but is not evidence of meaningful audience interest in commercial content (no purchase intent, no product feedback, no influencer-directed call-to-action). To decide on an ad buy, you should examine a larger set of comments for patterns (repetition, generic praise, emoji-only, suspicious user accounts), check like-to-comment ratios, audience authenticity (follower quality), comment timing, and whether comments show product-related discussion or conversions. Based on this single comment, score is moderate (50) with low confidence; more data is required for a reliable recommendation." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂 Die Fürze bei der Gastro killen mich 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/off-topic reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and engage socially (laughing emojis + colloquial German). Signals positive, informal engagement but is unrelated to product or promotional content." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a colloquial, emoji-heavy German reaction ('The farts at the gastro kill me'), clearly humorous and informal. It appears authentic (specific wording, slang, emojis) and is likely from a real user rather than a bot or paid promoter. However, it is off-topic with regard to advertising value: it contributes to engagement metrics but provides no purchase intent, product feedback, or influencer endorsement. For ad-buy decisions this comment is low signal — useful to show the influencer elicits organic amusement and community interaction, but not evidence of a relevant or conversion-ready audience. Caveat: assessment is based on one comment only; analyze a larger sample for reliable conclusions (look for topical comments, questions, product mentions, repeat accounts, and timing patterns)." }

Text: Augenheilkunde? Spätestens beim Gasablassen nach einer DMEK wäre bei mir aus 😅

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal opinion / aversion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal discomfort and hesitancy about a medical procedure (DMEK); engages with the post by sharing a firsthand reaction and uses an emoji to soften tone." } ], "interpretation": "The comment is in German and references ophthalmology (DMEK), indicating a topical, informed reaction rather than spam or promotion. Tone is personal and slightly humorous (emoji), expressing refusal or discomfort with the described procedure (specifically the gas release after DMEK). This reads as authentic user engagement from a potential patient or informed layperson. Because only a single, context-specific comment is provided, overall engagement and audience quality cannot be robustly assessed — low comment volume limits confidence about broader community sentiment or influencer engagement. For advertising feasibility: the comment is relevant and genuine, but the sample size is too small to judge audience responsiveness or conversion potential; further data (more comments, like counts, follower quality, comment timestamps, and diversity) is needed before recommending ad spend." }

Text: Gute Wahl

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic positive praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show approval/encouragement; increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "There is only one comment: \"Gute Wahl\" (German for \"Good choice\"). This is a short, generic positive reaction that signals approval but contains no product-specific detail, question, or personal context. Such comments can be genuine follower engagement (a quick supportive reply) or low-effort/botged engagement intended to inflate visible activity; the German language match with the comment reduces the bot likelihood if the influencer posts in German, but on its own this single data point is insufficient to be confident. Low comment volume and lack of conversational threads or critique suggest limited active community interaction on this post. For advertising-purchase decisions, this sample is weak evidence of a responsive or influential audience. Recommended next steps: review multiple posts for comment volume, diversity (length, content, questions), temporal patterns, commenter profiles (real-looking accounts vs. newly created or spammy names), like-to-comment ratio, and any paid-promotion disclosures before deciding. The fakeness and overall scores reflect the ambiguity from the tiny sample size rather than a definitive fraud indication." }

Text: Yeah Fließbandarbeit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical/sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express dissatisfaction or critique the content as formulaic/mass-produced; may aim to provoke reaction or vent negative opinion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Yeah Fließbandarbeit' reads as a genuine, brief critical/sarcastic remark (German: 'assembly-line work'), suggesting the commenter finds the content formulaic or mass-produced. It does not look like promotional/generic bot spam or a copy-paste positive bot comment, so fakeness is low. However, one comment is an extremely small sample and cannot reliably represent overall audience sentiment or authenticity. For advertising decisions, this single negative remark is a weak signal: if isolated, it should not disqualify the influencer, but if similar comments appear repeatedly across posts it would indicate perceived low authenticity and reduce ad value. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, overall engagement rate, like:comment ratio, follower quality, and sentiment trends before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Ich habe auch dankend abgelehnt 😂 noch schlimmer ist nur Funktionsoberarzt 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal anecdote / humorous reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express personal stance (declined), signal agreement/relatability with original post, add humor/sarcasm via emoji and comparison." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, colloquial German reply: 'Ich habe auch dankend abgelehnt 😂 noch schlimmer ist nur Funktionsoberarzt 😂' (I also declined with thanks; even worse is only 'Funktionsoberarzt'). It uses natural language, laughter emojis and a specific job-title reference, which are consistent with a real human response rather than a bot. Purpose appears to be engagement through relatability and humor rather than promotion or solicitation. Given only one comment is provided, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Recommendation: review a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, and for repetitive/templated phrasing to better assess bot activity and ad suitability. Based on this single comment, authenticity looks high (low fakeness), but overall assessment for advertising feasibility remains tentative due to limited data." }

Text: Und jetzt würde mich noch interessieren, wer saugt, wischt, Toilette putzt etc. 😅

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Audience question / conversational engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Poses a real-world, contextual question about who does household chores (vacuuming, mopping, cleaning the toilet) in a playful tone; aims to provoke discussion, show curiosity, and engage the poster. Also serves to signal relatability and test norms/roles shown in the post." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as authentic: colloquial German, an emoji that softens the tone, and a topical, specific question tied to household tasks. It appears to be a genuine follower engaging with the content (curiosity + light humor) rather than spam or generic praise. For advertising considerations, this kind of comment is useful because it reveals audience interest in everyday household topics — a potential match for cleaning products, home appliances, or lifestyle services. However, this assessment is based on one comment only; the sample size is too small to generalize about overall comment authenticity, engagement rates, or audience quality. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger set of recent comments for patterns (authentic questions vs. generic praise), inspect commenter profiles for bot signals (recent account creation, no profile pic, repetitive comments), check like-to-comment ratios, and review audience demographics and engagement trends to judge ad fit." }

Text: Ich hatte als Fachärztin in der Neurochirurgie eine 60% Stelle und kam auf 40 Wochenstunden. Mich interessiert jetzt wirklich wie man als leitender OA auf nur 40h kommt und in welchem Fach!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Professional challenge / inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "To question the post's claim or situation from a professional perspective and request clarification; conveys personal experience to challenge credibility." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a likely genuine, profession-based challenge: the commenter identifies as a neurosurgical specialist and asks how a senior physician can work only 40 hours, implying skepticism about the claim in the post. Tone is inquisitive/critical rather than promotional or generic. Fakeness risk is low (score 5) because the comment contains specific occupational detail and a plausible, context-aware challenge. For advertising feasibility: this indicates the poster attracts informed, scrutinizing followers (possibly peers), which supports authenticity but also means claims and sponsored content may be closely examined. Because only one comment is provided, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience; hence a moderate overall score (55) and modest confidence. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger set of comments for sentiment mix (supportive vs critical), commenter profiles (real professionals vs generic accounts), engagement rates, and audience demographics to assess fit for the campaign." }

Text: Top!👍🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short generic positive (text + emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show quick approval/engagement (low-effort praise); signal positive sentiment but little actionable insight or conversation." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment \"Top!👍🏼\" is available. This is a low-effort positive reaction that could come from a genuine follower or from automated/generic accounts; such one-word compliments are common both among real users and bots. With only one comment there is insufficient evidence to judge audience quality or engagement authenticity. For advertising feasibility this single comment provides minimal value: it indicates a positive tone but not engaged or conversational followers. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: examine volume and diversity of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, avatars, posting history), like-to-comment ratio, comment timestamps, and follower growth patterns to better assess authenticity and potential ROI." }

Text: Wie bist du von der Augenheilkunde in der ästhetischen Medizin gelandet? Ich bin Internistin und liebe meine Fachrichtung- würde mich nur interessieren, weil ich solche Lebensläufe spannend finde 🤗

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 7, "fakeness_confidence": 88, "overall_score": 58, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine question / professional curiosity", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about the creator's career path (ophthalmology → aesthetic medicine); express personal/professional interest; invite a conversational reply and possible networking" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is specific, contextualized and reads as authentic: it references medical specialities, states the commentator's own profession (internist), asks a direct question about the author's career transition, and uses a friendly emoji. It is neither generic praise nor a promotional/spam message, which lowers the likelihood of it being fake. Because only one comment is available, this is a very small sample — a positive sign for niche, professional engagement but insufficient to generalize about overall audience quality. For advertising decisions: this comment indicates that the influencer attracts at least some engaged, profession-specific followers (useful if your product/service targets medical professionals or aesthetics), but you should request broader metrics (total comments, comment diversity, engagement rate, follower authenticity checks, comment time distribution and other posts) before a purchase. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger comment sample, check commenter profiles for authenticity and relevance, and review overall engagement ratios." }

Text: Und jeder kriegt sogar noch ne Affäre unter, perfekt 😶‍🌫️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative_sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express displeasure/criticism with sarcasm; possibly to vent or provoke engagement rather than to support the poster or promote something." } ], "interpretation": "The single provided comment ('Und jeder kriegt sogar noch ne Affäre unter, perfekt 😶‍🌫️') reads as a genuine, sarcastic/critical reaction from an individual account rather than a bot or promotional account. Language and emoji use feel natural and context-specific, indicating low likelihood of automation or paid comment. The purpose is primarily to criticize or mock — it may signal some audience skepticism or negative sentiment toward the post content. However, this is only one data point; sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall comment authenticity or community sentiment. For an advertising feasibility decision, gather a larger sample of recent comments, engagement rates, follower quality, comment timestamps, and patterns (repeated phrases, many generic compliments, or mass posting) before concluding. Based on this single comment, authenticity appears likely but audience reaction may include negative voices; treat the result as preliminary." }

Text: Es geht alles man muss nur wollen und sich organisieren können. 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Supportive / motivational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express encouragement and approval; provide social proof and positive reinforcement to the poster; generic engagement to boost visibility." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Es geht alles man muss nur wollen und sich organisieren können. 🔥🔥🔥') is a short, positive, motivational remark with enthusiastic emoji use. It reads as a genuine supportive reaction rather than a direct promotion, question, or spam. There are no obvious bot signals (no links, no repeated phrases, natural grammar in German), but its generic phrasing means it could equally be a casual follower comment rather than a deeply engaged fan. With only one comment available, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall authenticity or quality of the influencer's audience. For advertising feasibility: this comment is mildly positive signal but insufficient on its own — recommend collecting more comments, checking commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history), comment diversity, timing patterns, and overall engagement rate before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "skeptical/sarcastic user comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disbelief or ridicule (social signaling, humor), potentially lowering perceived credibility of the post" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: \"Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂\" (German, sarcastic: people who believe that are naive/blissful). This reads like a genuine, informal reaction expressing skepticism and humor. It is unlikely to be a templated bot message (natural phrasing, language-specific, emoji), so fakeness is low (score 15) with moderate-high confidence. However, a single comment is a very small sample and cannot reliably represent the audience as a whole. For advertising-feasibility: the presence of skeptical comments can signal at least some audience doubt about the claim in the post, which is a risk for campaigns reliant on trust or product credibility. With only this data, overall suitability for advertising is cautious-to-moderate (score 40) with moderate confidence — not a clear rejection but a reason to perform a deeper audit. Recommended next steps: collect and analyze a larger comment sample (volume, sentiment breakdown, recurring themes), engagement rates (likes per comment, replies), distribution of commenter accounts (real vs. bot indicators), follower growth patterns, and prior campaign performance. Also check for comment clusters (copy-paste messages), language distribution, and ratio of positive to negative feedback before making a buy decision." }

Text: Zu, da kommst du aber sehr gut weg.Hätte dann auch lieber deinen Part😳

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment toward the poster and mild envy (personal engagement), not promotional or call-to-action." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Zu, da kommst du aber sehr gut weg. Hätte dann auch lieber deinen Part😳\". Tone is casual, conversational and mildly flattering with an emoji that signals playful embarrassment/jealousy. Linguistic features (natural phrasing, punctuation, emoji) point toward a real human commenter rather than bot/spam. The comment does not promote products, ask for tags, or contain stock influencer-marketing language. Because this is only one comment, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about the broader audience quality or engagement patterns. For advertising feasibility: this single organic-seeming positive comment is a small favorable signal but weak by itself — you need volume, comment diversity, commenter profiles (real follower accounts), like-to-comment ratios, reply threads, and audience demographics to make a reliable buy decision. Recommended next steps: evaluate the full comment set, commenter account authenticity (age, activity, followers), engagement rates over multiple posts, and look for repetitive/templated comments that indicate inauthentic engagement." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express simple approval/affection and increase visible engagement (social proof); low informational value" } ], "interpretation": "The only provided comment is a single heart emoji (❤️). This is a low-significance, positive reaction that contributes to visible engagement but carries little information about genuine audience interest or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are common among real followers but are also easy for bots or engagement farms to produce, so authenticity cannot be determined from this single item. Given the extremely small sample size, the comment set provides insufficient evidence to judge the influencer's comment quality or audience authenticity for advertising purchase decisions. Recommendation: analyze a larger, representative sample of comments (look for conversational comments, unique questions, purchase-related mentions), overall engagement rate vs follower count, comment timing and diversity, repeated phrases or accounts, and follower account quality before deciding. Current signals are weak and inconclusive." }

Text: Hat jemand Empfehlungen bzgl. Poren im Gesicht? 🥵

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Advice-seeking / question", "count": 1, "purpose": "User asks for recommendations about facial pores — information-seeking, starts conversation, expresses concern (emoji). Indicates genuine engagement and possible intent to try products/services." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Hat jemand Empfehlungen bzgl. Poren im Gesicht? 🥵\" (German — asking for recommendations about pores). This comment appears organic and human (specific request, natural phrasing, context-relevant emoji) with no clear bot signals (no generic praise, no repeat patterns, no promotional content). Fakeness score is low (10) with relatively high confidence because the message content and tone match typical real-user behavior.\n\nLimitations: this assessment is based on a single comment. You cannot reliably judge overall audience authenticity, engagement quality, or ad-feasibility from one data point. Important additional checks: volume of comments, diversity of commenters, timing patterns, reply rate and quality, commenter profile authenticity (age, followers, posts, avatars), like-to-comment ratio, presence of repeated/generic comments, and match between audience and the product category.\n\nPractical recommendation for influencer ad-feasibility: treat this as a weakly positive signal (there is at least one real person asking for product advice, which suggests topical interest). However, request more comprehensive data (50–200 recent comments, commenter profile samples, engagement metrics) before making an advertising purchase decision. If larger comment sample shows similar authentic, topical questions and active helpful replies, the influencer's audience may be suitable for skincare-related ads." }

Text: 😍👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/positive reaction; low-effort engagement that inflates visible engagement but gives little qualitative signal about audience interest or buying intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment '😍👏' is a generic positive reaction and provides very weak informational value. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or low-effort followers. Given only this comment, authenticity is uncertain and the engagement quality appears low. For advertising decisions, this comment alone is not a reliable indicator of an active, valuable audience. Recommend further checks: volume and proportion of substantive comments, commenter account checks (profiles, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and engagement diversity before proceeding with ad spend." }

Text: Ich bin wirklich entsetzt über solche Aussagen…😮😮😮😮😮

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative/expressive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disapproval and emotional surprise at the content of the post; likely aimed at criticizing or calling attention to perceived problematic statements." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a direct, emotional negative reaction in German: \"Ich bin wirklich entsetzt über solche Aussagen…😮😮😮😮😮\" (\"I'm really appalled by such statements...\"). It is specific in sentiment (disapproval) rather than generic praise or spam, includes context referring to the post's content, and uses multiple emojis — all signs that point toward a genuine user reaction rather than a bot/generic fake comment. Given only one comment, the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience sentiment. For advertising feasibility: a genuine negative reaction signals potential controversy or polarizing content risk; advertisers should review more comments and the post context (what statements prompted this reaction), check overall sentiment across recent posts, engagement rates, follower authenticity, and whether negative sentiment is isolated or systemic. Recommended next steps: collect a larger comment sample, analyze sentiment distribution, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity and repeated patterns, and evaluate the influencer's historical brand-safety issues before making ad purchase decisions." }

Text: Absolut an der Realität vorbei, ein Oberarzt hat mehr als 40h pro Woche, im operativen Bereich kann er dann schon um 7 Uhr im Krankenhaus erscheinen…landen dann die Kinder um sechs in der Kita, werden dann die Brot um fünf Uhr morgens geschmiert? Ganz bestimmt nicht…bleibt mal hier bei der Wahrheit…absolut lächerlich diese Aussagen 😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical / Negative (disagreement)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Challenge the accuracy of the post, express disagreement and distrust; call out perceived misinformation." } ], "interpretation": "Single long, specific, and emotive German-language comment criticizing the post's accuracy (mentions an 'Oberarzt', working hours, childcare timing). Linguistic markers (detail, rhetorical questions, punctuation, emojis) indicate a real human critic rather than a bot or generic promotional reply. Purpose is to correct/contest the post and signal distrust to other readers. For advertising feasibility: this comment indicates audience skepticism and possible reputational risk if the influencer frequently posts contested or inaccurate claims. However, this is only one comment — not a representative sample. Recommended next steps before a buy: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for sentiment distribution, engagement quality, follower authenticity, and whether negative comments are common or isolated." }

Text: Toll, dass Sie so einen schönen gemeinsamen Weg gefunden haben-das ist selten und sehr bewundernswert 💫ich finde es auch wirklich klasse, dass Sie zwei so tolle gebiete, Augenheilkunde und Ästhetik anbieten. Ich bin als Anästhesistin auch bei Augenärzten, es ist ein faszinierendes Fach! In Kombi mit Ästhetik und Longevity-fantastisch 🤍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment/Support", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses admiration and positive sentiment about the post/content; general encouragement." }, { "type": "Professional/Peer Recognition", "count": 1, "purpose": "Signals a relevant professional connection (mentions being an anesthesiologist and working with ophthalmologists), which increases credibility and indicates audience overlap." }, { "type": "Engagement/Community-building", "count": 1, "purpose": "Builds rapport and community by sharing personal perspective and enthusiasm, likely to foster further interaction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is detailed, context-specific and uses personal information (profession: anesthesiologist) and domain-specific references (ophthalmology, aesthetics, longevity). These features are strong indicators of a genuine comment rather than a generic bot or paid short-form comment. The purpose is primarily positive endorsement and peer recognition, which is valuable for influencer credibility in healthcare/beauty niches. Limitations: analysis is based on one comment only — low comment volume prevents robust conclusions about the broader audience or engagement authenticity. Overall feasibility for advertising: the quality of this comment is a positive signal (suggests real professional-interest followers), but the sample size is too small to rely on; recommend reviewing a larger set of recent comments, like/comment ratios, follower quality and temporal engagement patterns before final ad purchase decisions." }

Text: Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "curiosity/anticipation", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses interest in upcoming result, engages positively with the post and signals follower attention" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌\" (\"I'm curious to see the result 🙌\"). This is a short, positive, context-relevant remark with an emoji. It reads as human and engaged rather than clearly bot-like or promotional; there are no obvious spam markers (no links, no repeated generic praise like \"nice pic\" in mass). Given the extremely small sample size, the assessment is necessarily limited. The low fakeness score reflects that this single comment appears authentic, but confidence is moderate because bot comments can also be short and generic. For advertising purchase feasibility the available signal is weak: engagement exists but is minimal in quantity and diversity. I recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, the like-to-follower ratio, comment timestamps, repetition patterns across posts, follower account profiles, and presence of conversation replies to better judge audience quality before making a buying decision." }

Text: Ja

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short affirmative / one-word reply", "count": 1, "purpose": "signal agreement or minimal positive engagement; may be genuine quick reaction from a follower or low-effort/bot engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('Ja') was provided, so conclusions are very limited. The comment is a one-word affirmative that gives no substantive information, no product or campaign relevance, and no social proof beyond basic engagement. One-word comments are ambiguous: they can be authentic quick confirmations from followers but are also common in bot or low-effort engagement patterns. Given the lack of metadata (commenter identity, account quality, timing, likes on the comment, volume and variety of other comments), the fakeness assessment is uncertain (moderately leaning toward suspicious). The overall suitability for advertising is low because comment quality and informational value are poor; this reduces confidence in the influencer's ability to drive meaningful, conversational engagement or conversions. Recommendation: obtain more comments and context (comment authorship, follower counts, engagement rates, comment diversity, timestamps) before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise/approval", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/encouragement and boost visible engagement; can be either genuine low-effort support or generic/bot-like engagement intended to inflate metrics." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: a repeated 'raising hands' emoji string (🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌). Emoji-only comments are low-information signals: they indicate positive sentiment but give no contextual feedback about content, product fit, or audience motivations. Such comments are common from genuine followers doing quick praise, but they are also commonly produced by engagement pods or low-effort/bot accounts. Given the single example, authenticity cannot be reliably determined — hence a middling fakeness score and low confidence. For an advertising-buy decision, this single, generic comment is weak evidence of an engaged, relevant audience. Recommend further checks before purchasing: analyze the full comment set for proportion of substantive (text) comments, check commenter account quality (profile completeness, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns (many comments in short bursts), likes on comments, and overall engagement rate relative to follower count. Without that additional audit, treat the available comment signal as insufficient to confidently approve a paid partnership." }

Text: Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/organic customer comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses emotional desire to return (shows loyalty/positive experience), engages with the account personally rather than promoting or spamming." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢\" reads as a genuine, emotionally framed customer remark: informal language, first-person phrasing, and an emoji indicate a real person expressing that they want to come back. There are no hard signs of automation or promotional language (no links, tags, generic compliments, or influencer-style messaging). Given only one comment, however, sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall audience authenticity or engagement patterns. For ad-buy decisions this single positive, personal comment is mildly encouraging (it suggests satisfied followers who might convert), but it is insufficient evidence on its own. Recommended next steps: analyze total comment volume, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. bots), recurrence of similar messages, like-to-follower ratio, comment timestamps, and presence of generic/promo comments to better judge authenticity and engagement quality." }

Text: 1 Woche nachdem ich bei dir war @liebdeingesicht. ✨🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Testimonial / client endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a personal result/timeline and tag the service provider to provide social proof and show outcomes (informal recommendation)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('1 Woche nachdem ich bei dir war @liebdeingesicht. ✨🙌') reads like a genuine client testimonial: it references a specific timeframe ('1 week after I was with you'), tags the provider, and uses natural phrasing and emojis. These features reduce the likelihood of being a generic bot or bought comment. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising feasibility: the comment is a positive signal (real-looking social proof) but insufficient alone. Recommended next steps: review a larger set of comments for patterns (repetition, generic praise, copy-paste text), check the commenting account(s) for real activity/followers, compare comment rates to follower count (engagement rate), and request additional proof of conversions or client-case examples before finalizing ad spend. Overall, treat this as a low-probability fake comment but insufficient evidence to fully validate influencer credibility." }

Text: Lieben wir ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic positive praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "express approval/endorsement and provide social proof (short compliment with emoji)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Lieben wir ❤️' (German for 'We love it'). This is a short, generic positive reaction paired with an emoji. Strengths: language and tone are natural for authentic followers; content is consistent with a real user liking a post. Weaknesses/concerns: the comment is non-specific and could be left by either a genuine follower or a low-effort bot/account used to boost visible engagement; there is no account metadata, timing, or multiple similar comments to analyze patterns. Given this single, non-descriptive comment, the fakeness assessment is uncertain (moderately low probability of being fake but with low confidence). For advertising purchase feasibility, the evidence is insufficient — the single positive comment provides minimal social proof; you should request a larger sample of comments, follower-quality metrics (follower growth history, follower-to-like ratio, audience demographics), and engagement timing patterns before deciding. Overall recommendation: do not rely on this single comment as a signal of healthy authentic engagement; seek more data." }

Text: Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks factual information about the duration/effectiveness of a treatment (informational engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?') reads as a natural, inquisitive user question asking how long a treatment lasts. It shows genuine informational intent and no obvious signs of automation or promotional scripting. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall comment quality or audience authenticity. For advertising-feasibility decisions, request a larger sample of comments, engagement rates (likes, replies), commenter profiles, and timing patterns to assess real audience interest and the likelihood of genuine reach." }

Text: Am 5., 6. Tag ist dann auch bei die Wirkung voll da. 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Testimonial / personal experience", "count": 1, "purpose": "To report a positive outcome (claims product effect after 5–6 days) and provide social proof." }, { "type": "Engagement / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short affirmative message with emoji to signal approval and boost perceived popularity." }, { "type": "Potentially scripted/promotional", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief, reusable praise that could be a templated reply or part of coordinated promotion." } ], "interpretation": "The single visible comment reads like a short positive testimonial: “Am 5., 6. Tag ist dann auch bei die Wirkung voll da. 🙌” — claiming the effect is fully noticeable after day 5–6. Specific timing favors authenticity (users often mention days), but the short, generic structure and minor grammatical oddness (\"bei die Wirkung\") plus use of an emoji are characteristics common to both genuine micro-reviews and simple scripted promotional comments. With only one comment available, there is insufficient signal to be confident this is organic community endorsement. \n\nRecommendation: treat this as low-to-moderate evidence of genuine engagement. Before buying advertising or collaborating, audit additional signals — commenter profile (age, follower count, posting history), whether similar phrasing appears across other posts, overall comment volume and variety, timestamps (sudden bursts), and follower:engagement ratios. If multiple comments show varied, specific details from different accounts, confidence in authenticity would rise. As-is, the comment provides some positive social proof but is not strong enough alone to justify a purchase decision." }

Text: Was haltet ihr von dem BTX das gleich am nächsten Tag wirkt? Koreanisches zB

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / product inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks opinions or recommendations about a cosmetic treatment/product (BTX) — to start a conversation and gather user experience or recommendations." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment available: a user asking about a fast‑acting 'BTX' (example: Korean product). This looks like a genuine user question rather than obvious spam or automated praise — short, specific and topical. Fakeness risk is low but confidence is limited because the sample is a single comment. Overall engagement is minimal (one comment), so this post alone provides weak evidence of an active, engaged audience for advertising. For a reliable influencer assessment, analyze a larger sample of comments and commenter profiles (frequency, diversity, account age, follower counts), comment timestamps, like counts and overall engagement rate. Based on this single comment, interest in cosmetic treatments exists but there is insufficient evidence to recommend ad spend without further data." }

Text: Warum kannst du deine Augenbrauen noch bewegen, obwohl du ein Browlift und deine Stirn gemacht hast? Ich kann danach meine Augenbrauen nicht mehr bewegen. Ich würde sie aber gerne noch bewegen können.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal question / experience sharing", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seek information about surgical outcome and compare personal experiences; gauge the creator's authentic results and ability to move facial features after procedures." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a natural, specific question in German about the creator's ability to move their eyebrows after a brow lift and forehead work. It reads as genuine user engagement — not promotional, templated, or spammy — and indicates a follower interested in real results and details. From this comment alone we can infer some niche-relevant engagement and perceived credibility (followers asking technical, personal questions), which is positive for influencer authenticity. However, this is an extremely small sample: one comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality, engagement rate, or the presence of bots/fake comments across the account. For an advertising buy decision, request a larger sample (multiple posts, likes-to-comments ratio, commenter account checks, timing patterns, and repeated phrasing) before increasing confidence. Recommendations: analyze a 30–90 day comment set, inspect commenter profiles for real-user signals, and compare comment content diversity to detect patterns of inauthentic activity." }

Text: Kann man irgwndwas tun das die Haut ums Auge nicht so hängt nach einer Zornesfaltenbehandlung?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 7, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Advice-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Follower seeking information and reassurance about a possible side effect (sagging skin) after a cosmetic treatment (frown-line/glabellar treatment)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a genuine-looking, conversational question in German about post-treatment outcomes: \"Kann man irgendwas tun, dass die Haut ums Auge nicht so hängt nach einer Zornesfaltenbehandlung?\" (Can anything be done so the skin around the eye doesn't sag so much after a frown-line treatment?). The language and small typo ('irgwndwas') are consistent with human, informal engagement rather than bot-like or promotional content. Purpose is information-seeking and possibly soliciting reassurance or follow-up from the influencer/practitioner. For advertiser assessment this indicates topical, relevant engagement (audience concerned about treatment outcomes), which is valuable for aesthetic/dermatology/beauty ads. However, this analysis is based on a single comment: the sample size is too small to generalize about overall authenticity or audience quality. Recommended next steps before purchasing ad space: analyze a larger sample of comments for patterns (repetition, generic praise, emoji-only, timing clusters), check commenter profiles for real accounts vs. likely bots, measure like/reply ratios, and assess overall engagement rate and sentiment across multiple posts. Based on this one comment alone, fakeness risk appears low and the comment suggests meaningful audience interest, but confidence in an overall decision is limited." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (repeated emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive reaction / endorsement. Low informational content — signals approval or enthusiasm but does not convey intent, detailed feedback, or conversation." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment '🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥' is a generic positive reaction. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers (expressing enthusiasm) but are also frequently used by bots or low-effort engagement farms because they are easy to automate. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient data to judge overall authenticity or audience quality. For advertising decisions this single low-effort comment is weak evidence of meaningful, purchase-intent engagement. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and diversity of comment content before deciding to purchase advertising or collaborations." }

Text: Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "compliment / endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive feedback and social approval — expresses praise for the creators' skill and gives an explicit informal endorsement ('approved'), likely to boost perceived credibility and encourage engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓' — 'Golden hands on both of you, approved') is a short, specific compliment with emojis and an explicit endorsement. Indicators point toward a genuine follower-type response rather than a generic bot: it references the creators ('bei euch beiden'), uses natural phrasing and emojis, and gives an opinion ('approved'). Fakeness is therefore low but not zero because short positive comments can sometimes be planted. However, one comment is insufficient to judge the overall authenticity or value of the influencer for advertising. For ad-buy decisions you should: (1) analyze the full comment set for repetition, timing clusters, and identical phrasing; (2) inspect commenter profiles (age, activity, followers, content) for real-user signals; (3) check engagement rates (likes, saves, shares) and follower-to-comment ratios; and (4) look for patterns of inorganic behavior (many one-word/emoji comments, sudden bursts, many comments from new accounts). Based on this single comment the post shows a genuine positive signal but it is not enough alone to recommend purchase — further holistic analysis is required." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji/positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple support/affection; lightweight engagement that boosts visible engagement but provides no product interest or purchase intent. Can come from genuine followers, fans, engagement pods, or bots." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"❤️❤️❤️\". This is a generic positive reaction with very low informational value — it signals sentiment but not intent, relevance, or audience quality. Such emoji-only comments are common from real fans but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement pods, so they carry a moderate risk of being inauthentic (hence the fakeness score ~60 with limited confidence). For advertising decisions this is a weak positive signal: it shows some visible engagement but does not demonstrate interest in a product, thoughtful interaction, or audience targeting. Recommendation: inspect a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, bio), look for repetitive or near-identical comments, analyze timing patterns (many comments posted within short windows), and compare like-to-comment ratios. If uncertainty remains, request influencer’s engagement analytics or run a small test campaign before committing significant ad spend." }

Text: Was würde diese Behandlung im Set den kosten?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Price inquiry / Purchase intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking about the cost of a treatment in a set — indicates product/service interest and possible purchase intent; engagement-seeking." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“Was würde diese Behandlung im Set den kosten?”) is a straightforward price question in German and reads like a genuine consumer inquiry. It shows direct interest in the offering and potential purchase intent, which is a positive engagement signal for advertising. There are no obvious bot markers (generic praise, emojis-only, repetitive text) and the minor typo ('den' vs 'denn') is consistent with human typing. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to generalize engagement quality or audience authenticity. For ad-buy decisions, this comment is a favorable but weak signal; augment with broader metrics (comment volume and variety, commenter profile checks, like/comment ratios, follower authenticity, timing and growth patterns) before committing to spend." }

Text: ❤️ Ich hab gerade beschlossen… ich mache zeitnah einen Termin bei dir…. Ich will auch!!!!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Intent-to-convert / booking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Explicit statement of intent to schedule an appointment with the influencer/service — direct conversion signal and measurable business outcome." }, { "type": "Positive enthusiastic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Emotional support / social proof (emoji, multiple exclamation marks) that increases perceived demand and encourages others." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears genuine and valuable: it uses specific language ('mache zeitnah einen Termin bei dir') that indicates a real intention to purchase/book rather than a generic compliment. The heart emoji and emphatic punctuation signal enthusiasm and personal engagement. Fakeness is assessed low (15/100) because the content is concrete (appointment booking) rather than a one-word or templated praise typical of fake/comment-farm activity. Confidence in that judgement is moderate (60/100) because analysis is based on one isolated comment without metadata (commenter profile, posting time, account history, engagement rates, likes on the comment, or reply thread). Overall suitability for advertising is cautiously positive (55/100) — the comment is a good conversion signal, but one comment is insufficient to conclude reliably about the influencer's audience quality or ad performance. Recommended next steps before purchasing ad space: review commenter profiles (real follower status, activity), aggregate comment themes across multiple posts, check like-to-follower and comment-to-follower ratios, request past campaign conversion metrics from the influencer, and consider a small paid test to validate actual bookings driven by the influencer." }

Text: Bei dir fühlt man auch nichts 🥰💁🏻‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "ambiguous/praise (short engagement)", "count": 1, "purpose": "social engagement — appears intended to compliment or acknowledge the poster and increase visible interaction (emojis used); not overtly promotional or link-driven" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Bei dir fühlt man auch nichts 🥰💁🏻‍♀️\". The message is somewhat grammatically odd but accompanied by affectionate/flirtatious emojis, which is typical of genuine follower engagement. It does not contain promotional language, call-to-action, or obvious bot signatures (no links, no repetitive keywords). Given the tiny sample size, assessment is low-confidence: the comment is more likely authentic human interaction than clearly fake, but could still be low-effort or from an inactive/engagement-account. For influencer-advertising feasibility this single comment provides almost no evidence of a responsive, purchase-intent audience. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter profiles for real follower counts and activity, look for patterns of repetitive phrasing or high-volume identical comments, and compare like-to-comment ratios and comment timestamps to detect inorganic behavior." }

Text: Botox in den trapezius…😳

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "viewer reaction / surprise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise/observation about a perceived Botox procedure in the trapezius; signals topical engagement and a slightly critical or curious stance rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Botox in den trapezius…😳') reads as a spontaneous viewer reaction: brief, context-specific, and emotive (surprise/concern). It is not a generic compliment, call-to-action, or obviously promotional — traits commonly associated with fake or bot comments. Given its specificity and natural language (including an emoji), the comment likely comes from a real person noticing or questioning a cosmetic procedure. However, one comment is insufficient to judge the overall comment health or audience authenticity. For an advertising decision, this single relevant, engaged comment is a small positive signal (audience notices content and reacts), but you should analyze the full comment set, commenter profiles, like/reply patterns, engagement rate, timing, and prevalence of generic/promo comments before concluding. Recommended next checks: volume and diversity of comments, commenter follower counts and histories, ratio of meaningful comments to generic ones, and comment timestamps to detect inorganic bursts." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement to signal attention or agreement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of laugh emojis was provided. Emoji-only reactions are common, low-effort engagement signals that indicate someone saw and reacted to the post but provide no substantive endorsement, intent to purchase, or audience insight. Such comments are frequently genuine casual responses but are also easily generated by bots or mass-engagement services, so their presence alone is weak evidence of an engaged, valuable audience for advertising. Given the very small sample (one short emoji), the assessment is low-confidence. For ad-purchase decisions, rely on broader metrics (comment diversity and substance, saves, shares, story mentions, follower quality, and engagement over multiple posts) rather than this single emoji reaction." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction and quick engagement; low information content for sentiment or intent" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three laughing emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). This is a low-effort, high-frequency comment type that commonly appears under influencer posts. It signals engagement (the post elicited amusement) but provides almost no signal about authentic audience interest, purchase intent, or the commenter's identity. Emoji-only comments can be genuine (real followers reacting quickly) or produced by low-effort bot/accounts; with a single example and no context (time posted, commenter profile, comment volume, reply structure, like counts, or distribution of other comment types) the assessment is necessarily weak. Recommended next steps before using this influencer for advertising: analyze a larger sample of comments for diversity (textual comments, questions, tagging, testimonials), check commenter profiles for real accounts vs. generic/bot-like accounts, examine comment timing and repetition patterns, measure engagement ratios (likes, saves, story views) relative to follower count, and look for replies/conversations that indicate real audience interaction." }

Text: 🎵”Vollbepackt mit tollen Sachen, die das Leben schöner machen, hinein ins Weekend-Feeling! Mit Zott Sahnejoghurt, sahnig, fruchtig, frisch und dann... hinein ins Weekend-Feeling, mmh, lass dich mal gehen, schalt einfach ab, erlebe den sahnigen Geschmack... mit Zott ins Weekend-Feeling!"🎵

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 75, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Branded promotional jingle quote", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct product/brand promotion — repeating advertising copy or a slogan to drive brand visibility and positive associations." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a verbatim jingle-style promotional text for Zott Sahnejoghurt (sung/quoted copy with emoji). It lacks personal reaction, no questions, no reference to the poster, and reads like scripted ad copy or a seeded/brand-supplied comment. That pattern is commonly produced by brand reps, social agencies, or automated/replicated comments rather than organic user engagement. Given only one comment and its promotional nature, this is a weak signal of genuine audience conversation and suggests low organic engagement or presence of artificially planted promotional comments. For ad-buy decisions, request more context: full comment set, commenter account profiles, timing of comments, likes on comments, follower quality, and post reach/engagement rates. Without that, treat audience authenticity as questionable and proceed cautiously." }

Text: Den Spruch auf der Jägermeister Flasche (ich trinke keinen Alkohol)

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal observation / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Reacting to a visible element (the text on a Jägermeister bottle) and adding a personal disclosure ('I don't drink alcohol') — simple, genuine engagement rather than promotional or spam." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single short, context-specific comment that points out wording on a product in the image and adds a personal note that the commenter does not drink. This reads as authentic, low-effort engagement rather than a paid/automated promotion or bot activity. For influencer advertising decisions: the comment quality is genuine but sparse — one organic remark is insufficient to judge audience enthusiasm or purchase intent. Note the brand mention (Jägermeister) and the user's disclosure of being a non-drinker, which may indicate that at least part of the audience could be unsuitable for alcohol-targeted campaigns. Recommend collecting more comments, likes, and follower engagement metrics before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: Das ist beeindruckend 👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval and provide social proof; lightweight engagement that signals positive reception but contains little informative value." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, positive German-language compliment: \"Das ist beeindruckend 👏\" (\"This is impressive\"). This reads as generic praise and likely genuine—but with a single short comment there is very limited signal. There are no obvious bot markers (no links, repeated phrases, or spam tokens), but short generic comments can also be produced by engagement farms or bots. Fakeness risk is therefore low-to-moderate (score ~15) but the confidence is limited because of the tiny sample (confidence ~40). For advertising-feasibility decisions this one comment is insufficient: it provides weak positive social proof but no information on commenter authenticity, diversity of engagement, comment depth, timing patterns, or like:comment ratios. Recommendation: review a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), engagement rates across posts, and audience demographics before making a purchase decision." }

Text: All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/supportive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise/endorsement and social proof — expresses satisfaction and reinforces the post's message; likely intended to show engagement and approval." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️' — 'All the monthly celebrations really paid off') is a short, natural-sounding positive remark with emojis. It functions as social proof and friendly endorsement rather than a promotional call-to-action or spam. There are no obvious red flags (no links, no repeated templated phrasing), but with only one comment analyzed the sample is too small to be confident about authenticity or overall audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects the comment's natural language and emoji use; the moderate-low confidence scores reflect high uncertainty due to lack of additional context. Recommendation: evaluate a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter account age/activity, look for repetition/duplicates, timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: Was geht 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short informal engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick acknowledgement/express amusement and friendliness; lightweight engagement rather than substantive feedback or promotion" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Was geht 😂😂😂') is a short, informal German-language engagement with laughing emojis. This pattern is more consistent with a casual real follower or acquaintance leaving a quick reaction than with a targeted promotional bot; however, short/emoji-rich comments are also commonly produced by low-effort bot farms, so absolute certainty is limited. With only one comment available there is insufficient evidence of meaningful, broad audience engagement — it signals light attention but not deep interest or purchase intent. For advertising decisions, this comment alone should not be taken as proof of an engaged, high-quality audience. Recommend reviewing volume and diversity of comments across multiple posts, commenter profiles (real vs. empty accounts), comment timing, like-to-follower ratios, and running a small paid test or requesting audience analytics from the influencer before committing budget." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction (emojis + brief text)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple positive sentiment / engagement (praise/approval). Often used to signal appreciation and boost visible engagement; could be from a genuine follower or from generic/bot accounts that use emojis and short phrases." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided ('🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it') is a brief, emoji-rich positive reaction. This style is common among genuine followers but is also frequently produced by low-effort bot or engagement-farm accounts because it contains no post-specific detail. Given only one comment and no metadata (commenter handle, account age, follower counts, timing, repetition across posts), the assessment of fakeness is tentative. The comment increases visible engagement but provides low signal about authentic audience interest. For an advertising decision, inspect commenter profiles (are they real people, do they have avatars and activity?), overall comment diversity and specificity across multiple posts, like:comment ratio, timing patterns, repeated identical comments, and follower quality. With only this evidence, treat engagement as weak-to-moderate: it contributes to metrics but is not strong proof of an engaged, authentic audience." }

Text: Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind? …

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "poetic/creative engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation/evoke mood and engage with the post by quoting literature; non-promotional, likely a genuine follower response" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: “Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind?” (a line from Goethe's \"Erlkönig\"). This looks like a creative, contextual engagement rather than obvious bot or promotional spam. The comment is specific (a literary quote) which lowers the probability it is automated, but with a single example the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or community quality. For influencer-advertising decisions you should not rely on one comment: request the full comment set, timestamps, commenter profile data (follower counts, account age, activity), repetition patterns, and like counts. Based on this single comment I give a low fakeness score (20) but with moderate uncertainty; overall suitability for advertising is tentative (55) pending a more complete analysis of comment volume, diversity, and account-level signals." }

Text: Wasserentnahmestelle Unterflurhydrant. Verteiler an die markierte Stelle. 1. Rohr zum linken Brandabschnitt über die Leiterwand vor. C-leitung selbst verlegen 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Technical / Instructional (firefighting)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide specific operational instructions and guidance (location of hydrant, placement of distributor, route for hoses); also signals domain expertise and a mildly jocular tone with the laughing emoji." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a niche, technical instruction likely written by someone with firefighting or emergency-response experience (mentions 'Unterflurhydrant', 'Verteiler', 'C-leitung', 'Brandabschnitt'). Its specificity and jargon make it appear genuine rather than generic or bot-driven. The laughing emoji suggests informal/bantering tone rather than promotional intent. For influencer advertising feasibility this comment (and if similar comments dominate) indicates a specialized, professional audience rather than consumer engagement or purchase intent — not ideal for broad consumer-brand campaigns. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments and analyze follower demographics and commenters' profiles to confirm audience fit before purchasing ads." }

Text: Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/appreciative", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation for the post, signal emotional support and engagement (affirmation that the content was meaningful)" } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is extremely small (single comment). The comment \"Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛\" (\"That was anything but pointless\") is context-specific and expresses appreciation rather than a generic compliment, which leans toward genuine engagement. It uses natural language and an emoji, and does not show common bot patterns (links, repeated keywords, generic phrases like \"Nice post\"). However, with only one data point it's not possible to rule out a planted or incentivized positive comment. Overall the comments appear likely authentic but this assessment has moderate uncertainty — recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower count, activity), timing patterns, and comment diversity before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: Ganz klar, die Deklination aller Endungen aller Stämme aus dem Latein Unterricht. Beispiel a-Deklination: a, ae, ae, am, a, plural: ae, arum, is, as, is. IYKYK 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic/human engagement (humorous, topical)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Niche in-joke and engagement — commenter references Latin grammar (a‑declension) with humor (IYKYK 😂). Purpose is to connect, show familiarity with post content, and entertain other followers." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a context-specific, humorous remark in German referencing Latin declension rules. It reads as genuine human engagement (knowledgeable, playful tone, emoji), not generic praise or spam. Low likelihood of being fake or bot-generated. However, this is only one comment — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment quality on the post or the influencer's audience authenticity. For advertising feasibility this is a mildly positive signal (shows engaged, topic-aligned followers) but insufficient alone to recommend purchase. Recommended next steps: gather a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check commenter profiles for real accounts and follower counts, measure comment-to-follower and like-to-follower ratios, look for repeated/copy-paste comments (patterns indicating paid comments or bots), and analyze sentiment and language distribution to confirm audience fit for the blog's advertisers." }

Text: Wer beweist, dass da kein Teleprompter war? 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 80, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humor / sarcasm / skepticism", "count": 1, "purpose": "Playful teasing and casting doubt on authenticity (questions whether content was scripted/used a teleprompter); intended to engage or provoke a reaction." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment is a short, colloquial German remark with an emoji that jokes about a teleprompter. Tone is informal and lightly skeptical rather than hostile. It appears genuine (natural language, context-appropriate emoji), so low probability of being fake or bot-driven. For influencer-ad suitability: this single comment does not indicate widespread inauthentic engagement or strong negative sentiment, but it does signal that at least one follower is attentive to perceived authenticity. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments for patterns (repeated phrases, generic praise, many short emoji-only replies, commenter account quality) before making a purchasing decision. If many comments similarly question authenticity, that could reduce effectiveness of authentic-feel advertising; if this is isolated, it’s not a material concern." }

Text: If you have the inspiration to complete the population, take a girl behind the door lay her safety in the floor. Take away the decoration and begin the fabrication if you are both in Action, satisfaction satisfaction 🤐irgendwann mal irgendwo gelesen und seit mehr als 30 Jahren einfach in meinem Kopf 🤯

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/reflective (quote/memory)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Sharing a remembered phrase or personal thought; reflective/expressive rather than addressing the post directly." }, { "type": "nonsensical/unclear phrasing", "count": 1, "purpose": "Parts of the comment are grammatically odd or semantically unclear; may be a mistranslation, stream-of-consciousness, or copied text that doesn't clearly relate to the post." }, { "type": "emotional reaction (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Use of emojis (🤐🤯) to convey emotion or emphasis and increase engagement/visibility." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads like an idiosyncratic remembered line or quote (ends with a German sentence saying it has been in the author's head for 30+ years). It is not promotional, contains no links or obvious marketing, and does not show hallmarks of coordinated bot spam (no repeated short generic praise, no emojis-only spam, no hashtags/links). The odd English phrasing could stem from non-native language use, careless typing, or automated translation, which creates some ambiguity. Given only one comment, there is insufficient evidence of systematic fake engagement on this post. For advertising decisions: this comment suggests organic, idiosyncratic audience interaction but gives little signal about audience quality, relevance, or conversion potential. Recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments and engagement metrics (likes, follower growth, comment patterns) before making a buy decision." }

Text: Werbespots aus den 90ern… einfach ins Gehirn gebrannt 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "nostalgic reaction / humorous engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express nostalgia and amusement; signal positive emotional resonance with the post (engagement rather than promotion or call-to-action)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Werbespots aus den 90ern… einfach ins Gehirn gebrannt 😂') reads as a natural, colloquial reaction expressing nostalgia and amusement; the use of German phrasing and emoji increases the likelihood it is genuine rather than a templated bot reply. Fakeness risk is low (fakeness_score 10) but not zero since single comments can be copied or lightly automated. However, one comment is very limited evidence: it shows at least some audience resonance but tells us nothing about audience size, diversity, intent to convert, or overall authenticity. For advertising-buy decisions, this is weak signal — you need volume and variety of comments (questions, tags, saves, critiques), commenter profile checks (real accounts, follower counts, past activity), like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and comment repetition templates. Recommendation: request a larger comment sample and perform profile-level audits before proceeding with ad spend." }

Text: Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine user engagement / request", "count": 1, "purpose": "User asks for/requests 'Full Freeze' (likely a product/service or treatment) and signals playful positive intent with emojis — aimed at attracting the influencer's attention or expressing interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️' appears authentic: it uses natural language, a first-person phrasing ('Einmal bitte' = 'One please'), and expressive emojis, which are common in genuine follower reactions. Fakeness is low (10/100) but confidence is moderate because the sample size is one comment. For advertising-feasibility, this single positive-looking comment is insufficient evidence of healthy, organic engagement or audience quality. The overall score (40/100) reflects limited data — the comment is encouraging but isolated. Recommended next steps before a buy decision: examine a larger sample of recent comments for repetition/patterns, check commenter account(s) for real profiles and past activity, compare comment-to-like ratio and follower growth, and analyze comment timing (sudden bursts vs. steady). If most comments resemble this one and commenters are real, the post and audience would be more favorable for advertising." }

Text: Wie wenig botox! 😅 och hab immer 30 Einstiche im Gesicht. Aber ich steh halt auch nicht auf natürlich. Man soll aus 50km Entfernung sehen wofür und wie viel Geld ich ausgebe! 🤣 Ich will gar keine Mimik. Anders passt es sonst nicht zu meinem Charakter!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous / sarcastic personal anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "entertainment, personality expression; keeps tone light and ironic while sharing a personal stance on cosmetic procedures" }, { "type": "brag / status signalling", "count": 1, "purpose": "self-presentation to signal wealth/beauty investment and attract attention" }, { "type": "engagement-seeking / provocative", "count": 1, "purpose": "to provoke reactions (laughs, replies) and increase post engagement" } ], "interpretation": "The comment is a single, clearly sarcastic/humorous personal anecdote about cosmetic procedures (Botox). Tone and choice of emojis suggest a human, playful voice rather than a templated bot reply. It functions as both entertainment and status signalling (bragging about many injections), and is intended to provoke reactions. For advertisers: this indicates at least some of the audience is candid about and interested in cosmetic enhancement; that can be attractive to beauty/aesthetic brands but potentially polarizing for mainstream or conservative advertisers. There are no obvious bot markers (generic praise, repeat phrases, links, off-topic hashtags), so authenticity appears likely. Confidence is limited by the sample size (one comment only) — assess more comments for reliable conclusions. Recommendation: cautiously positive signal for beauty/cosmetic advertisers; gather a larger random sample of comments, check engagement rates and follower authenticity before purchase." }