Job: @docmerita

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/support/celebration; low-information engagement" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment consists of three clapping-hand emojis. Emoji-only comments typically signal positive sentiment (approval or celebration) but provide little evidence about genuine audience interest or influence. Such comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or engagement pods and can be faked or duplicated across posts. Given only one generic emoji comment, the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions. For advertising-feasibility assessment this comment is weak signal: it indicates some positive reaction but does not demonstrate meaningful engagement, intent to purchase, or high-quality audience interaction. Recommended next steps: examine volume and variety of comments across multiple posts, timing and repetition patterns, commenter account quality (age, followers, activity), like-to-comment ratios, and presence of substantive comments/questions to better determine authenticity and value for advertising." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 0, "fakeness_confidence": 0, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 0, "comment_types": [ { "type": "no_comments_provided", "count": 0, "purpose": "No comments available to classify or analyze" } ], "interpretation": "No comments were supplied for analysis. I cannot identify comment types, purposes, or estimate fakeness without the actual comment text or a screenshot. To proceed, please provide the list of comments (or a representative sample), including timestamps and usernames if possible. With that data I will: 1) classify comment types (e.g., genuine praise, spam, bot-like short replies, neutral questions, promotional/affiliate links, language patterns), 2) estimate per-comment and aggregate fakeness scores with confidence levels, and 3) give an overall assessment of engagement authenticity and suitability for advertising." }

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": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "health advice / misinformation", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share health opinion and persuade others (discourage sunscreen use, claim vitamin D prevents/affects cancer)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment contains medical misinformation (claims that vitamin D prevents cancer and that vitamin D deficiency causes skin cancer, and an anti-sunscreen stance). Linguistic cues (casual tone, spelling errors, emoji) suggest a likely organic human commenter rather than an obvious bot or coordinated spam account — hence a low 'fake account' score. Purpose appears to be to advise/persuade and to cast doubt on sunscreens. For influencer advertising feasibility, this comment signals potential audience segments that hold health-misinformation beliefs; that raises brand-safety risk for advertisers in skincare, pharmaceuticals, or other health-related categories. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments and commenter profiles for patterns of misinformation or inauthentic engagement before purchasing ads; consider monitoring or moderating misleading health claims on the post." }

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": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "constructive/critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "advise the poster to change behavior; express mild criticism/sarcasm and engage with the content" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('verständlich.. dann könntest du dich aber an den gang setzen (für dich besser und für andere auch die am fenster gerne rausschauen)') reads as natural, targeted feedback in German and likely comes from a real user rather than a bot or paid liker. Tone is mildly critical/suggestive rather than promotional or generic; purpose is to advise and subtly reproach the poster. With only one comment it is impossible to draw robust conclusions about overall engagement quality or audience authenticity — this sample suggests authentic, conversational engagement but more data (volume of comments, like-to-comment ratio, comment diversity, timing, account profiles) is required to assess advertising suitability reliably. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger comment sample, check commenter accounts for real profiles and follower overlap, and measure sentiment distribution and reply patterns." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product question / inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks information about the product's effectiveness/duration for a specific use case (8-hour flight). Indicates active consideration of the product and genuine curiosity from a follower." } ], "interpretation": "The sole comment is a direct, product-focused question in German asking whether the sunscreen is sufficient for an 8-hour flight. This is typical of genuine follower engagement and suggests the audience includes potential buyers considering real-world use. Fakeness is likely low — the comment is specific and not generic or promotional — but confidence is limited because only one comment was provided. For an advertising-purchase decision, this single comment is a weak positive signal: it shows relevance and interest but is insufficient to judge overall audience quality, engagement authenticity, or conversion potential. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments for patterns (duplicate or generic comments, emoji-only replies, tags), check follower quality (growth spikes, follower-to-engagement ratios), examine replies from the influencer (do they answer product questions), and look at engagement rates and comment sentiment across multiple posts before finalizing an ad buy." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "informational / conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "User adds contextual information or a clarification related to the post (mentions protective foils in the cockpit). Likely intended to inform or continue discussion rather than to praise or promote." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available. The comment is in German and reads roughly: “Also in the cockpit there are apparently special foils that are supposed to protect against that.” It appears to be a genuine, context-specific contribution rather than generic praise, emoji-only, or copy-paste spam. There are no clear signs of coordination, promotional intent, or bot-like language in this one item. However, a single comment is insufficient to judge overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising feasibility: current sample is weak — low comment volume and no promotional/brand-support signals. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, likes, follower metrics, comment timestamps, and commenter profiles to assess real engagement, audience relevance, and risk of fake/inorganic interaction before purchasing advertising." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal opinion / genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Acknowledges the post's information, states a personal choice (keeps window open), and compliments the visual (likes the view). Serves as authentic reader reaction rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "There is only one comment available. Its language and content are natural and specific (German, mentions a behavioral choice and appreciation of the view), which are low-risk indicators of being fake—hence a low fakeness score. However, the sample is too small to generalize about the overall audience quality. From an advertising-purchase perspective this single comment shows genuine, contextual engagement but provides weak evidence of sustained, high-quality interaction or conversion potential. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, comment-to-follower ratio, like counts, and follower authenticity before deciding on 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": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 90, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "technical question / genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks factual information and clarification about materials and UV protection; aims to start/continue a topical discussion and shows subject-matter interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is long, specific and technical (in German), asking about acrylic aircraft windows and UV absorption — characteristics consistent with a real, engaged user rather than a generic/bot reply. It appears informational and conversational, which is a positive signal for influencer value: the audience is capable of nuanced, product-adjacent discussion (useful for campaigns around travel safety, eyewear, UV-protection products, materials science, etc.). However this assessment is based on one comment only; broader conclusions require more data (total comment volume, reply threads, like counts, follower authenticity, timing patterns). Recommendation: treat this as an indicator of potentially high-quality engagement but validate with additional metrics and a small test campaign before larger ad spend." }

Text: Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical/negative — linguistic/marketing critique", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express skepticism or annoyance at the use of the anglicism/marketing term \"well aging\"; to call out tone or phrasing, possibly signaling distrust or mild mockery." } ], "interpretation": "Der vorliegende Kommentar („Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘“) ist kurz, kritisch und fokussiert auf die Wortwahl/Marketingformulierung. Er wirkt wie ein echter Nutzerkommentar (keine typischen Bot-Merkmale wie Emoji-Spam, generische Lob-Floskeln oder wiederholte Hashtags). Solche Kommentare deuten auf ein Publikum hin, das aufmerksam auf Sprache und Markenbotschaften reagiert — das kann Engagement positiv beeinflussen, aber bei vielen ähnlichen Kommentaren auch auf eine potenzielle Diskrepanz zwischen Influencer/Marke und Zielgruppe hindeuten. Bewertungseinschränkung: Analyse basiert auf nur einem Kommentar; zur verlässlichen Einschätzung von Echtheit und Werbetauglichkeit sollte eine größere Stichprobe der Kommentare geprüft werden." }

Text: Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question/inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "seeking clarification or practical advice; direct engagement with post content (reader asks why not choose an aisle seat)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided ('Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?') reads as a genuine, context-specific question from a follower rather than a generic promotional or bot-style reply. It indicates an engaged reader reacting to a practical point in the post (likely about seating or travel). With only one comment, however, this is an extremely small sample from which to judge overall comment authenticity or community health. Recommendations: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), look for repeated phrasing or mass-produced comments, compare like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, language variety, and presence of replies. Based on the single comment, there is a low likelihood of inauthenticity, but the overall assessment for advertising feasibility remains tentative due to insufficient data." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine conversational / critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for clarification and expressing confusion about the relevance/connection between elements of the post (mild criticism, engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Was hat das eine mit dem anderen zu tun hä?😂' — 'What does one have to do with the other, huh? 😂') appears authentic and comes across as a viewer asking why elements of the post don't match or feel unrelated. It is not promotional, generic ('nice post'), or bot-like; it contains natural punctuation, colloquial phrasing and an emoji, all consistent with real users. Given only one comment, we cannot generalize about the whole comments section or the account's authenticity; however, this comment signals engaged viewers noticing a possible mismatch in content or messaging. For advertising decisions, this is a small positive for genuine engagement but insufficient evidence of broad organic interaction. Recommend analyzing a larger sample (more comments, commenter profiles, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratio) and checking for common signs of inorganic activity before purchase." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / personal engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/admiration and relate personally to the post (uses emojis and a playful question)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Oha ich werd braun wenn ich fliege???😍😍') reads as a natural, language-specific reaction: casual phrasing, emoji use, and content relevance suggest a real user reacting to tanning/travel content. There are no obvious bot markers (no links, no generic marketing phrases, not copy-pasted). Given only one comment, the dataset is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience quality. Recommendation: treat this comment as likely genuine (low fakeness) but verify across a larger sample of comments, likes, follower profiles, and engagement rates before making an advertising purchase decision. Current overall suitability for advertising is moderate (score ~55) with low-to-moderate confidence because of limited data." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short, low-effort engagement signalling amusement or approval; boosts visible engagement but provides no purchase intent or qualitative feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of a laughing emoji is available. This is a common, low-information engagement type that likely comes from a follower reacting in the moment. It mildly improves engagement metrics but does not indicate genuine interest in a product or intent to convert. The fakeness estimate is low-to-moderate (20%) because emoji-only comments can be either authentic light reactions or part of engagement pods/bot activity; confidence is limited due to the extremely small sample. Overall advertising-feasibility score is neutral-to-low (45) with low confidence: there is insufficient comment-level evidence to recommend purchase decisions. Recommend obtaining a larger sample of recent posts (comment diversity, depth, timing), follower quality metrics, engagement rate vs. follower count, and examples of campaign performance or conversions before proceeding." }

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": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 75, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "opinion/critique", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal viewpoint and disagreement with the subject's risk-averse attitude (criticizes 'mir könnte dies und das passieren')." }, { "type": "emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Conveys feelings about the experience (values window view during flights, frustration with the other person's stance)." }, { "type": "moral/social commentary", "count": 1, "purpose": "Makes a normative statement ('Leben und leben lassen') and comments on how the person should raise children." }, { "type": "appeal to authority/contextualization", "count": 1, "purpose": "References the subject's profession ('she is a doctor') to acknowledge possible credibility but rejects overcautious behavior overall." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears to be an organic, individual reaction rather than a bot or promotional message. The commenter strongly prefers windowed flights and resents what they see as overly risk-averse messaging from the post subject (who is noted as a doctor). Tone is mildly confrontational but not abusive — a mix of personal preference, moralizing ('live and let live'), and sarcasm about parenting. For influencer ad assessment this is a positive signal: it shows real, topic-relevant engagement and genuine opinionated responses from followers. Caveats: this is one comment only — assess volume, repetition, timing and account types in the full comment set to confirm authenticity and audience sentiment before purchase 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": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "advice/suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide practical advice about sun exposure through a window (informational/engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (German: \"Es ist aber echt wichtig die Fensterblende offen zu lassen..... gegen die UV-Strahlung kann man sich eincremen\") reads as a natural, non-promotional user remark giving practical advice about keeping the window blind open and using sunscreen. Linguistic cues (casual phrasing, ellipses, no links or emojis, topic-relevant content) point toward an authentic individual comment rather than a bot or paid promotional message. However, this is only one comment: sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall audience quality or engagement authenticity. For an advertising-purchase decision, this comment is mildly positive (shows real topical engagement) but insufficient evidence; I recommend collecting more comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history), like counts, temporal patterns, and additional engagement signals before committing. Given current data, comment-level fakeness risk appears low, but overall assessment for ad feasibility is tentative and only moderate due to lack of broader evidence." }

Text: Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "opinion/contrast", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal preference (saying 'Internal medicine is much more interesting'), likely to provoke light conversation or signal the commenter’s interest/position; informal engagement indicated by emojis." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁') appears genuine: it's specific (mentions a medical specialty), uses natural language and emojis, and contains no promotional phrasing or bot-like repetition. This suggests authentic individual engagement rather than automated or paid comments. However, this is only one data point — you cannot reliably assess overall comment quality or audience authenticity from a single comment. For advertising feasibility: the comment indicates at least some audience overlap with medical interests, but it does not show purchase intent, product-related interest, or broad positive sentiment toward the influencer’s content. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, check engagement rates, commenter profiles (real follower accounts vs. likely bots), and audience demographics before final ad spend decision." }

Text: Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic humorous reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter at the post (social engagement, signaling in-group appreciation)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂\" is a short, colloquial German reaction meaning roughly \"I'm cracking up, the hospitality/restaurant (part)\" with multiple laughing emojis. Signals of authenticity: context-specific phrasing, informal slang ('Ich brech ab'), and repeated emojis. These are typical of genuine audience reactions rather than templated bot comments. However, assessment is limited by sample size (only one comment). From an advertising-feasibility perspective this one comment indicates some organic engagement and an emotionally positive reaction, but it is insufficient to judge overall audience quality, engagement rate, or presence of fake followers/comments. Recommendation: collect a larger sample (50–200 recent comments), measure like-to-follower ratio, diversity of commenters, timing patterns, and look for repeated/generic comments or suspicious accounts before making a buy decision." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 20, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; low-effort engagement to signal enjoyment or react to content." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of four laughing emojis is available. This is a low-information, low-effort engagement that likely indicates a genuine quick reaction but provides no substantive endorsement, intent to purchase, or signal of audience quality. Fakeness is judged low-moderate (15) because emoji-only comments are common from real users but are also easy for bots or coordinated campaigns to mimic; confidence is limited because there is only one comment and no contextual metadata (commenter profile, timing, volume, likes). Overall suitability of this post as evidence for advertising purchase is poor (score 20) with low confidence: you cannot reliably assess audience authenticity, interest in advertised products, or conversion potential from this single emoji reaction. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments and replies, inspect commenter accounts for follower counts and activity, check engagement rate (likes/comments) versus follower count, look at comment diversity and timing patterns, and review story/view metrics and past campaign performance before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Expressive / Positive reaction (laughter)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/enjoyment and give lightweight social endorsement; signals the post elicited an emotional response." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂”) is a short, emotionally expressive reaction indicating amusement. As a lone, generic laughing-comment it is most likely genuine and from a typical follower reacting to humorous content, but it provides very little signal about audience quality or commercial intent. A low fakeness score is assigned because the wording and emojis are natural and non-formulaic, but confidence is limited due to the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient: there are no product-related questions, no indications of purchase intent, no discussion thread and no diversity of commenters. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of recent comments, look for repetitive phrasing or identical emojis/usernames (bot patterns), check comment timing, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created), overall engagement rate (likes, saves, views) and audience demographics before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short text + emoji (single-word/topic tag)", "count": 1, "purpose": "express admiration/positive reaction or topical tagging (signals interest or affiliation); can be low-effort engagement to boost visible activity" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍\" (German for \"obstetrics\" / \"midwifery\" followed by heart-eyes emojis). This is a very short, positive/affiliative reaction. Such comments often serve to (a) show approval, (b) indicate topical interest (the commenter may be in the childbirth/midwifery field or reacting to related content), or (c) provide low-effort engagement (emoji-driven) that increases visible interaction. With a single short comment there is high ambiguity: the comment could be genuine follower reaction, a friendly colleague, or a generic/bot-like engagement used to inflate numbers. Signals that raise suspicion: brevity, use of only emojis plus a single topical word, and lack of contextual content. Signals for genuineness: topical (non-generic) word in the local language and use of enthusiastic emojis. Given the limited data the fakeness estimate is mildly above average (60/100) with moderate uncertainty. For advertising feasibility: this single comment does not demonstrate meaningful, authentic audience engagement or conversational comments that indicate influence and trust. I recommend obtaining more data before purchasing ads: collect a larger sample of comments, check comment diversity, commenter profiles (real-looking accounts, profile pictures, follower counts), timestamps (burst patterns), like-to-comment ratio, follower growth history, and past brand collaborations. Based on the single comment alone, the profile should be treated as a moderate risk for ad spend; do not base a purchase decision solely on this evidence." }

Text: Chirurgie ♥️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive / emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express support/affection; signal engagement (low-effort). Could be genuine fan response or generic engagement to increase visible activity." } ], "interpretation": "Dataset extremely limited (single comment: \"Chirurgie ♥️\"). This comment is short, positive and uses an emoji — a common pattern for low-effort engagement. Such comments can be genuine (a follower expressing support or reacting to content about surgery) or inorganic (bot/generic accounts or purchased engagement) — there is no contextual information here (no commenter profile, timing, frequency, or other comments) to disambiguate. Given the ambiguity, I estimate a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness score ~40) but with low confidence. For an advertising feasibility decision, this single comment is insufficient evidence: overall assessment is neutral (score ~50) with low confidence. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), compare likes-to-comments ratio, look for repetitive/generic comment patterns, and check audience demographics and reach metrics before purchase." }

Text: Dermatologie?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks whether the post/content relates to dermatology (topic or professional qualification); a topical clarification or expression of interest, likely genuine engagement rather than promotional or spam." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single short comment: \"Dermatologie?\". It most likely is a genuine, brief inquiry asking whether the post concerns dermatology or is by/for a dermatologist. The comment shows topical interest but provides very little signal about audience authenticity or overall engagement quality. Given its brevity and relevance, it does not appear to be bot-like or promotional — hence a low fakeness score (10) with moderate confidence. However, one comment is insufficient to evaluate the influencer's comment quality or detect orchestrated/fake engagement. For advertising feasibility this single data point is weak: it indicates possible audience interest in medical/skin-care topics but does not show volume, diversity, sentiment, or conversion potential. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments for patterns (repeated text, unrelated emojis, timing), check engagement rate vs follower count, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts, and analyze linguistic diversity and conversation depth. Based on the single comment, give a cautious, low-to-moderate suitability score (30) with modest confidence." }

Text: @corinnafeldmeier 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention + emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging another user to draw their attention / share the post and express amusement (light engagement, social referral)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single, low-information comment is present: a user mention (@corinnafeldmeier) plus a laughing emoji. This is typical of organic social behavior where followers tag friends to share content or react briefly; it does not indicate product interest, detailed feedback, or buying intent. The comment appears likely genuine (low probability of being fake), but it provides little insight into audience quality or persuasiveness for advertising. Overall assessment for ad-purchase feasibility based on these comments is weak — there is engagement, but it is shallow and insufficient as evidence of an engaged, purchase-ready community. Recommendation: review a larger sample of recent posts and comments for patterns (questions about products, testimonials, repeated short/tag comments that could indicate engagement pods or inorganic activity), and examine metrics like comment diversity, follower-to-comment ratio, and DM/inbox inquiries before making an advertising decision." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement signal with no substantive feedback or call to action." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single short emoji comment (\"😂😂\"). That is a low-information engagement signal: it indicates a positive/amused reaction but gives no contextual, behavioral, or demographic cues. Short emoji comments are common in genuine interactions but are also easy for bots or engagement farms to generate, so authenticity is uncertain. Given the very small sample size (one comment), the assessment is highly tentative. Recommended next steps before using this influencer for advertising: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity patterns), check timing patterns (bursts of similar comments), and compare comment-to-like ratios and follower engagement rate. Current scores reflect limited, low-confidence evidence and should not be used alone to make purchase decisions." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / personal admiration", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for the profession and indicate a personal connection (social proof / positive sentiment). Encourages visibility and signals endorsement." }, { "type": "Spam / promotional", "count": 0, "purpose": "No evidence of blatant promotional or bot-like spam (no links, tags, generic marketing phrases)." }, { "type": "Question / engagement prompt", "count": 0, "purpose": "No questions or attempts to start a conversation observed." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment provided. The content is a context-specific, personal statement in German with an emoji — not a generic marketing phrase — which leans toward genuine user engagement rather than automated spam. However, the sample size is extremely small, so confidence is limited. From an advertising-purchase perspective, a single, isolated comment (even if likely genuine) indicates low visible comment volume and limited social proof. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments, commenter account details (ages, follower counts), timestamps, and overall engagement rates (likes/comments per follower) before making buying decisions. If constrained to this data only, treat the comment section as weak for ad credibility despite appearing authentic." }

Text: HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/affective", "count": 1, "purpose": "Выражение эмоций (восхищение/смех) с помощью эмодзи — поддержка/вовлечение автора поста." }, { "type": "referential/mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ссылка на субъект «HNO» (возможный пользователь/событие) — указывает, что комментатор комментирует конкретную ситуацию («kam zu spät» = пришёл/пришла слишком поздно)." } ], "interpretation": "Один короткий комментарий «HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣» сочетает упоминание (HNO) и лёгкую юмористическую/позитивную реакцию (эмодзи). Это выглядит как естественное, спонтанное взаимодействие подписчика: ничто в тексте не указывает на шаблонность или массовую автоматизацию (нет ссылок, повторяющихся хэштегов, рекламных фраз). Уровень «фейковости» низкий. Однако на основании одного комментария невозможно судить о качестве аудитории или общей подлинности комментариев под постом. Для оценки рекламной целесообразности требуется больше данных: общий объём комментариев, разнообразие авторов, время появления комментариев, соотношение лайков/просмотров, профили комментаторов (реальные пользователи или боты), а также наличие повторяющихся фраз или аккаунтов." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and relate to a funny/embarrassing moment in the post; signal social connection with the creator/content." }, { "type": "emoji-heavy / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive reaction using emojis to show enjoyment and boost visible engagement metrics; little informational value for advertisers." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is informal, colloquial German with many laughing emojis and a crude joke about \"farts\" in a gastronomy context. It reads as a genuine, spontaneous audience reaction rather than a bot or paid promotional comment—hence a low fakeness score. As a signal for advertising feasibility: it shows active, humorous engagement from followers, which can be valuable for brands that fit a casual or irreverent tone. However, the comment is non-promotional and provides no evidence of purchasing intent or trust in the influencer. Brand-safety considerations apply: the crude humor might not suit premium or conservative brands. Confidence in the assessment is limited because this is only one comment; to make a reliable advertising decision, analyze a larger sample of comments (volume, diversity, repetition patterns), the ratio of likes-to-comments, follower quality, and whether comments include spammy or repeated phrases indicative of bot activity." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal reaction / question", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express personal discomfort/humour about a medical procedure and ask/confirm topical context (ophthalmology). Engages the poster for clarification or relatable reaction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is in German and references a specific ophthalmic procedure (DMEK) and the discomfort associated with gas release after surgery. Tone is personal, slightly humorous (emoji), and shows topic knowledge—traits consistent with a real follower rather than a bot or paid promotional comment. Purpose is engagement and clarification rather than self-promotion. This suggests the post attracts informed, niche-interest audience members (patients or professionals). However, with only one comment available the sample is tiny: authenticity looks high but broader comment volume, like/author ratios, commenter profiles and additional comments should be checked before making advertising decisions. Preliminary assessment: suitable for targeted medical/ophthalmology-related advertising due to relevance and authentic engagement, but verify larger engagement patterns and follower quality prior to purchase." }

Text: Gute Wahl

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short generic praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "показать поддержку/похвалу публикации; повысить видимость вовлечённости (может быть искренним или шаблонным)" } ], "interpretation": "Есть только один короткий комментарий «Gute Wahl» (нем. «Хороший выбор»). По форме это типичный краткий позитивный отклик: он повышает видимость поста, но не даёт глубокого сигнала о заинтересованной аудитории. Такая краткость делает комментарий двузначным — он может быть от реального подписчика, знакомого или нейтрального зрителя, но также соответствует шаблонам массовых/автобот-комментариев (односложные похвалы, часто повторяющиеся). Учитывая единичность данных, оценка фейковости средняя (40/100) с невысокой уверенностью — требуется дополнительная проверка: профиль комментатора (активность, фото, число подписчиков и подписок), время публикации и другие комментарии/лайки на посте, повторяющаяся лексика у разных комментаторов и соотношение лайков к комментариям. На основе единственного такого комментария рекомендовать покупку рекламы только по этому признаку нецелесообразно — сигнал слабый (общая оценка 45/100). Рекомендации: проанализировать больше комментариев и профили комментаторов, проверить историю взаимодействий с аудиторией и общий уровень органического вовлечения автора." }

Text: Yeah Fließbandarbeit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical/sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express negative evaluation of the content (claims it's repetitive or 'assembly-line' work), likely to signal dissatisfaction or call out perceived low effort/originality." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Yeah Fließbandarbeit') is a short, informal critical/sarcastic remark in mixed English/German that accuses the creator of producing 'assembly-line' content. It does not resemble a generic promotional or bot-like comment; language and tone suggest a real user expressing dissatisfaction. However, this is only one data point — it flags a potential perception problem (audience may see content as low-effort or formulaic), which could reduce the influencer's suitability for certain ad campaigns that require high authenticity or premium brand alignment. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments (volume, sentiment distribution), check commenter profiles for authenticity, and review engagement quality (meaningful replies, conversation threads) before making an advertising decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous personal anecdote / conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "express a personal experience (declining something) and make a joke to build rapport with the poster and other followers" } ], "interpretation": "The comment (German: 'Ich habe auch dankend abgelehnt 😂 noch schlimmer ist nur Funktionsoberarzt 😂') reads as an authentic, informal reaction from a real follower. It combines a brief personal anecdote ('I also declined, thankfully') with humor (laughing emojis, joking about the job title 'Funktionsoberarzt'). There are no obvious signs of promotional intent, generic praise, or spam/bot patterns. This suggests genuine audience engagement and community interaction, which is favorable for influencer advertising — particularly for campaigns that benefit from relatable, conversational tone. Confidence is limited by the extremely small sample (one comment); to make an informed buy decision you should analyze a larger set of comments, commenter profiles, like-to-follower ratios, and reply threads." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine engagement / conversational question", "count": 1, "purpose": "To ask a follow-up question about household chores (who vacuums, mops, cleans the toilet), expressed with a light/humorous tone (emoji) to prompt a reply or further storytelling." } ], "interpretation": "The comment reads as a natural, human reaction: a light-hearted follow-up question that shows curiosity about behind-the-scenes or household division of labor. The use of the smiling/awkward emoji (😅) signals humor/rapport rather than spam or promotional intent. This suggests at least some authentic audience interaction and willingness to engage with the creator. However, analysis is based on a single comment only — the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience authenticity or the account's suitability for advertising. For ad-purchase decision-making, this single comment is mildly positive (audience feels comfortable asking personal, engaging questions), but you should evaluate a larger set of comments (volume, diversity, timing, repetition, language patterns) and other metrics (like/comment ratio, follower growth, comment sources) before deciding. Recommended next steps: aggregate more comments across posts, check for repeated templates or bot-like replies, and review engagement timing and commenter profiles to raise confidence." }

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": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "professionally critical / questioning", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share personal professional experience and request clarification / challenge a claim (seek details about working hours and specialty)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears genuine: it's written in idiomatic German, contains specific professional detail (neurosurgery, 60% position, 40-week hours) and asks a pointed question about how another clinician could have a 40-hour workweek as a senior attending and in which specialty. That pattern (specificity + critique/questioning) is typical of a real professional reader rather than a bot or generic spam. For advertising feasibility this is a mixed but useful signal: the account draws engaged, knowledgeable followers who will post substantive comments — good for authenticity and for campaigns targeting professionals or healthcare-related products. However, the sample size is one comment, so generalization is unreliable. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments (multiple posts), commenter account profiles, timing, and reply patterns to confirm overall audience composition and authenticity before purchasing advertising. Possible downside: presence of critical/probing comments indicates the audience may scrutinize claims in sponsored content, so creatives and claims must be evidence-based and transparent." }

Text: Top!👍🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short praise/compliment with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/support and provide social proof; low-effort engagement to signal approval" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Топ!👍🏼\" (a brief praise plus emoji). This is a positive, low-effort engagement that can inflate visible approval but carries little informational weight. Such comments are common from genuine followers as quick approval, but they are also typical of inorganic or low-quality engagement (bots, engagement pods, mass commenters) because they are generic and reusable across many posts. Given the single-sample input, I assess a moderate probability of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 35) but with low-to-moderate confidence (45) because the sample size is too small to be decisive. For advertising-purchase decisions this single comment does not provide reliable evidence of audience quality, depth of engagement, or conversion potential. Recommended next steps before purchasing: review a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts (variety, depth, language diversity), check likes-to-comments ratio, examine commenter profiles for authenticity (follower counts, activity, profile pictures, comment patterns), and request influencer analytics (reach, saves, story views, demographic data). Based on the single comment alone, I would not use this as a strong positive signal for ad spend (overall_score 40, confidence 40)." }

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": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 90, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine_question/engaged_follower", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about the influencer's career path, express professional curiosity, start a conversational exchange and build rapport/networking" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a plausible, organic engagement from a real professional (German-speaking physician) asking how the influencer moved from ophthalmology to aesthetic medicine. It reads as genuine curiosity rather than promotional or spammy behavior (no emojis typical of bot spam, uses profession-specific language and a personal disclosure). As evidence for advertising feasibility, this is a positive signal: the audience includes peers or professionally-interested followers, which is valuable for medical/aesthetic brand partnerships. However, one comment is insufficient to generalize about the overall comment authenticity or audience quality. To reach a stronger conclusion, review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity, mutual connections), like ratios, timing patterns, and presence of repetitive or templated comments. Based on this single data point, fakeness is very low but the advertising-feasibility score is moderate-high (reflecting potential but limited sample size)." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical / sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express criticism and sarcasm about the post/content (calling out an 'affair'), likely to signal disapproval, provoke reaction or voice skepticism. Not promotional." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment — \"Und jeder kriegt sogar noch ne Affäre unter, perfekt 😶‍🌫️\" (\"And everyone even gets an affair underneath, perfect\") — reads as a native-language, sarcastic/critical reaction. It appears organic: uses idiomatic phrasing and an emoji conveying bemused disbelief. This is not promotional or bot-like. Based on this lone example, there is low indication of fake engagement; however the sample is extremely limited. For reliable influencer-ad-buy decisions you should analyze a larger set of comments (volume, repetition, timing), commenter account metadata (age, follower count, activity), and like/reply patterns to detect coordinated or inauthentic behavior. Given current information, the comments show a negative but genuine user reaction rather than signs of purchased/fake engagement." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/motivational", "count": 1, "purpose": "express encouragement and agreement; signal support for the post and increase visible engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Single available comment is a short, positive/motivational message in German: 'Es geht alles man muss nur wollen und sich organisieren können. 🔥🔥🔥' — it contains natural phrasing and casual emoji use, with no promotional language or obvious bot markers. This suggests genuine, low-effort engagement rather than clearly fake engagement. However, a single comment is an extremely small sample: there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or community quality. The comment's generic nature (no reference to specifics of the post, no detailed personal anecdote) could indicate low-effort human engagement or a templated reply used by engaged followers; it does not on its own indicate coordinated fake activity. For an advertising feasibility decision, more data is needed: larger comment sample, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity), timing patterns, repetition across posts, and like-to-comment ratios. Based on this one comment alone, I give a moderate cautious endorsement (overall score 45) with moderate confidence. Recommended next steps: collect at least 100 recent comments across several posts, check for repeated phrases/users, inspect commenter follower/following ratios and account ages, and compare engagement rates to follower count." }

Text: Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "sarcastic / skeptical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disbelief or mock the claim/content of the post; indicates negative sentiment and skepticism." }, { "type": "humorous reaction (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Uses laughter emoji to signal amusement; increases visible engagement but not endorsement." }, { "type": "organic user engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Real-seeming short text comment likely from an individual rather than a promotional/bot account; engages with the post but not positively." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂' — a sarcastic, skeptical reaction (\"Anyone who believes that will be blessed/laughable\"). This reads as genuine user skepticism rather than a promotional or bot-generated compliment. Fakeness is assessed low (~15) because the tone is nuanced and uses idiomatic language plus emoji, which are harder for generic bots to mimic convincingly; confidence is moderate (70%) because one comment is a small sample. For advertising feasibility, this single negative/skeptical comment is a weak signal: it suggests some of the influencer's audience may be critical or not readily persuaded by the post content, which reduces immediate suitability for straightforward promotional messages. Overall score 40/100 reflects limited positive engagement and small sample size. Recommend: review a larger set of recent comments (volume, sentiment distribution), commenters' profiles (real vs. bot indicators), like-to-comment ratio, and historical campaign performance before deciding on ad spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal/engagement (genuine follower)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express envy/compliment and engage directly with the creator (social interaction, informal reaction). Not promotional or CTA-driven." } ], "interpretation": "Comment translation: \"Wow, you get off very well there. I would also rather have your part 😳.\" Tone: informal, slightly envious/admiring, uses an emoji to convey emotion. Likely authored by a real user rather than a bot—no generic praise, no promotional links, natural phrasing and context-specific content. However this is a single data point; sample size is too small to draw robust conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising feasibility this comment is a positive signal (shows authentic engagement and emotional reaction), but you should analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, timestamps, and repeated patterns to confirm genuine engagement before purchasing advertising." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only reaction (❤️)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive reaction / social approval. Low-effort engagement that signals sentiment but not purchase intent; could be genuine follower interaction or generic/automated engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is extremely small (single comment: a heart emoji). This is low-information engagement: it shows positive sentiment but no topical relevance or intent to buy. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort engagement farms, so I assign a moderate fakeness score with low confidence. For advertising purchase decisions this single comment is weak evidence — it does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, product fit, or authentic interaction. Recommendation: analyze a larger set of comments, commenter account quality (profile age, follower/following ratio, activity), comment diversity (questions, personal references, tagging), timing patterns, likes vs. comments ratio, and other metrics (saves, shares, story engagement) before deciding. Current signal suggests caution (low feasibility) but the conclusion is uncertain due to lack of data." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 7, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question / request for advice", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks personal skincare recommendations about facial pores; drives community engagement and signals topical interest in skincare." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment is a direct, content-relevant question in German asking for recommendations about facial pores. It reads like authentic user engagement (personal concern + emoji). With only one comment available, there is insufficient evidence to judge overall audience quality or authenticity for advertising decisions. The low fakeness score reflects a high likelihood this is a genuine user query, but the overall assessment is neutral-to-cautious because more data is needed (more comments, commenter profiles, timing, like-to-comment ratios) before concluding the influencer's comment quality or suitability for ad purchase." }

Text: 😍👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/appreciation and boost visible engagement (likes/comments). Low informational value and low explicit purchase intent; can be genuine follower reaction or low-effort engagement from pods/bots." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short emoji comment (\"😍👏\") is available. Emoji-only responses are typical low-effort positive engagement: they raise visible engagement metrics but do not indicate strong interest, intent to purchase, or meaningful conversation. Such comments are commonly posted by genuine followers, casual viewers, engagement pods, or automated accounts — there is insufficient signal to distinguish among those possibilities. Given the small sample and the low information content of the comment, the probability of inorganic or low-quality engagement is moderate (hence the mid fakeness score) but confidence is low. For advertising purchase decisions, this single comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, conversion-ready audience. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments (diversity, length, questions, tagging), check ratio of comments to followers and saves/shares, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (account age, follower counts, posting history), and review historical engagement trends and audience demographics before proceeding." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative / astonished reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disapproval and emotional shock at the post's content; likely a direct reaction or call-out rather than promotional or bot activity." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: a German-language negative reaction ('Ich bin wirklich entsetzt über solche Aussagen…😮😮😮😮😮'). The tone and emoji use suggest an individual emotional response rather than a promotional or spam comment. Fakeness is assessed low (15) but not zero because short, generic negative comments can sometimes be left by coordinated accounts; confidence is moderate. With a single comment there is insufficient data to judge overall audience quality or sentiment. For advertising decisions: this single negative reaction neither strongly supports nor rules out a partnership, but it does flag potential reputational risk if similar comments are common across other posts. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments for sentiment distribution, look for patterns of engagement quality (likes, replies), and audit follower authenticity before purchasing advertising." }

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": 80, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical/negative", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct disagreement with the post's claims; challenge accuracy and credibility of content." }, { "type": "personal/occupational testimony", "count": 1, "purpose": "References real-world professional constraints (Oberarzt, working hours) to dispute the post; adds domain-specific context." }, { "type": "emotional/expressive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Shows frustration and incredulity (emojis, strong language) to emphasize disagreement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is likely genuine (low fakeness). It cites specific professional details (Oberarzt, >40h/week, operative start times) and uses rhetorical questions and emotive punctuation, which are characteristic of an engaged, real user disputing the post's accuracy. Purpose is to correct perceived misinformation and to express frustration. For influencer-ad decisions this comment signals an audience member willing to challenge content — evidence of real engagement and topical knowledge — but it is negative toward the post's message. One negative but authentic comment is not by itself disqualifying for advertising; however, it suggests you should (1) analyze a larger sample of recent comments for sentiment distribution, (2) check commenter profiles for authenticity and relevance to the brand, and (3) evaluate whether the influencer's content routinely attracts knowledgeable criticism that could affect brand alignment. Given only this single data point, overall suitability for advertising is moderately positive (score 65) but with limited confidence; further comment and profile analysis is recommended." }

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": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Supportive / Complimentary (professional peer)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive feedback; signal professional affinity and endorsement (mentions own role as an anesthesiologist and direct experience with ophthalmology)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears to be genuine and substantive rather than generic or promotional. It contains specific occupational detail (anesthesiologist working with ophthalmologists), expresses admiration for the creators' combined focus on ophthalmology, aesthetics and longevity, and uses personalized language and emojis. As a data point for influencer advertising feasibility, this comment is positive and suggests the influencer reaches or resonates with professional/medical peers, which can support credibility in health/beauty/longevity niches. However, this is only one comment — conclusions about overall audience authenticity, engagement quality, and commercial potential are limited. Recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments, follower quality, engagement rates, and comment diversity before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic supportive / anticipation", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses interest and positive anticipation about the outcome; likely intended to show support/engagement rather than provide substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: a short, positive, German-language message ('Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌' — 'Looking forward to the result'). This is typical lightweight engagement that modestly boosts visible interaction but offers little information about audience quality or purchase intent. The comment is short and generic, which slightly raises the possibility of automated or low-effort engagement, but the language and emoji use are consistent with normal follower behavior, so I assess low probability of fakery (fakeness_score 20). Because the sample is extremely small, confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, high-quality audience; recommend reviewing a larger sample of recent comments, commenter profiles (activity, follower counts), ratio of comments to followers, and presence of meaningful, varied interactions before making a buying decision." }

Text: Ja

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short affirmative (single-word 'Ja')", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses simple agreement/approval or acknowledgement; low-effort engagement that could be genuine or generic/bot-driven" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: the one-word reply 'Ja'. This is ambiguous: single-word affirmations are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or bots. With only one comment there is insufficient evidence to judge comment authenticity or audience quality. The relatively high fakeness score reflects the pattern that short, generic comments are often low-value; the low confidence reflects the extremely small sample size. For an advertising decision, do not rely on this single comment. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter’s profile (age, followers, posting history), check for many similar short comments across this and other posts, review likes-to-comments ratio and comment timestamps, audit follower quality and demographics, and sample more posts. Based on current data I rate the post as low suitability for ad purchase (overall_score=25) but this assessment has low confidence and should be re-evaluated after a fuller engagement and audience audit." }

Text: 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/enthusiasm and boost visible engagement (quick reaction rather than substantive feedback). Can be posted by genuine followers, engagement-pod participants, or bots." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is six identical 'raising hands' emojis — a non-specific, low-effort positive reaction. This type of comment signals applause/enthusiasm but carries little informational value about genuine audience sentiment or product interest. Emoji-only comments are commonly produced by real users doing quick reactions, by engagement pods coordinating to raise visible engagement, or by automated/bot accounts; with only one comment provided, distinguishing among those possibilities is not possible. For advertising purchase decisions, this sample is inconclusive and slightly suspicious: while it shows some visible engagement, it lacks substantive, targeted feedback (questions, personal endorsements, mentions of product/benefit) that advertisers typically want. Recommendation: do not base a buy decision on this alone — request a larger sample of comments, examine comment diversity and timing, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (profile photos, follower counts, posting history), check like-to-comment ratios across multiple posts, and look for repeated identical comments across posts. If a high proportion of comments are emoji-only or repetitive, consider the engagement quality low and discount the influencer's effective reach." }

Text: Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Loyalty/return-intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses desire to come back / re-engage with the account (positive sentiment, likely past customer or follower showing emotional connection)." } ], "interpretation": "Single short German comment \"Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢\" (\"I have to come back to you / see you again\") indicates a positive, emotionally-driven intent to revisit and likely genuine personal engagement. The message style (natural language, emoji) and specific phrasing suggest a real user rather than a generic bot reply. However this is only one comment — sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall audience authenticity or suitability for advertising. For an advertising purchase decision, request a larger sample of comments, engagement rates, follower quality metrics (growth history, follower-to-like ratios), and examples of replies and conversion signals before committing. The low fakeness score reflects the likely genuineness of this single comment; the moderate/low confidences reflect high uncertainty due to limited data." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Testimonial / client praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Social proof — a past client reporting results after a service, tagging the service account and adding positive emojis to signal satisfaction." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: '1 Woche nachdem ich bei dir war @liebdeingesicht. ✨🙌' — a brief, time-specific client testimonial that tags the service account. The content and specificity (mentions '1 week after') lean toward genuine positive feedback rather than generic spam, but the sample size is extremely small so confidence is limited. Risks: could be a friendly/partner comment or a planted testimonial; low comment volume reduces social-proof strength. For advertising decisions, treat this as weak–moderate evidence of authentic engagement. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter’s profile (follower count, prior comments, authenticity), check full post comment list for variety and depth of responses, verify overall engagement rates on the influencer’s recent posts, and request audience demographics or a media kit before committing ad spend." }

Text: Lieben wir ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic positive / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/affection (social proof). Short, non-specific engagement intended to signal liking without substantive feedback; could come from a genuine follower or a low-effort/bot account." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Lieben wir ❤️' (We love it). This is positive but very generic and provides little informative value about audience quality or product sentiment. Such short praise with an emoji is common among genuine followers but is also often produced by low-effort accounts or engagement bots, so there is a meaningful chance of inauthenticity. With this limited data I rate the comment set as somewhat likely to include non-informative or possibly fake engagement (fakeness_score 40, confidence 60). For advertising feasibility the evidence is insufficient and weak (overall_score 35, confidence 30). Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles (followers, posting history, profile pictures, language), check comment timing patterns and repetition, compare engagement rate to follower count, and look for conversational comments or questions that indicate real audience interest." }

Text: Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Information-seeking about service duration (product/service inquiry), indicating potential genuine interest or purchase intent" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, in German ('Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?' = 'How long does such a treatment last?'), is a direct information-seeking question. It reads as a genuine user asking about the longevity of a treatment rather than a generic praise or promotional/bot-like message. This indicates some real interest from at least one follower, which is positive for conversion potential. However, with only one comment there is insufficient data to assess overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For a robust influencer-ad buy decision, request more data: total number of comments, comment diversity, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity, profile pictures, recent posts), timing of comments, likes-to-comments ratio, repeated/generic phrasing across comments, and language consistency. Those additional signals will allow a higher-confidence judgment about fake engagement and audience value." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "testimonial / personal experience", "count": 1, "purpose": "Reporting product effect timing and reinforcing positive outcome (social proof)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, positive testimonial in German: \"By the 5th, 6th day the effect is fully there. 🙌\" It functions as social proof and encouragement for the product. The wording contains a small grammatical slip, which can indicate a genuine user rather than templated copy, but a single positive comment is low-evidence and could still be planted. Given only this one comment, authenticity is moderately likely (fakeness score ~30) but confidence is limited. For an advertising decision, this lone comment is insufficient — request more comments, engagement metrics (likes, replies), follower quality and diversity, and look for repetitive phrasing or many similar short praises which would raise fakeness concerns. Overall, the comment is mildly supportive for ad feasibility but provides weak evidence; further data needed before purchase." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "User asks for opinion and information about a cosmetic treatment (BTX) — engagement indicating purchase-research intent and topical interest." } ], "interpretation": "There is only one comment: \"Was haltet ihr von dem BTX das gleich am nächsten Tag wirkt? Koreanisches zB\". It reads as a genuine user question seeking experiences or recommendations about a fast-acting BTX (botulinum-toxin) product, likely intended to start a conversation or gather advice. Fakeness is judged low (15) because the phrasing is natural, specific and not promotional or formulaic; confidence is moderate since a single comment is insufficient to detect coordinated or bot activity. For influencer-ad feasibility: this single comment indicates topical interest from at least one follower, which is a positive signal for advertisers in the cosmetic/medical aesthetic niche, but the sample is too small to conclude broad authentic engagement. Recommend further evaluation before purchase: analyze total comment volume, ratio of unique accounts to comments, timing patterns, user account quality (profiles, photos, history), presence of generic promotional comments, sentiment distribution, and compliance risk when advertising medical treatments in the target region. Based on the available data (one organic-seeming question), overall suitability score is moderate (45) with moderate confidence (60)." }

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": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Personal-experience inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks information about surgical outcome (browlift/forehead procedure) and expresses personal experience/concern — likely a prospective patient or engaged follower asking for clarification/reassurance." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a natural-language, topic-specific question in German about the ability to move eyebrows after a browlift/forehead procedure. It reads as genuine (not generic praise, not spam, no stock phrases) and demonstrates topical engagement and real concern — useful signals of an audience interested in cosmetic procedures. From an advertising-feasibility perspective this is positive: the commenter is relevant to aesthetic/medical advertising and shows authentic curiosity. Caveats: this is only one comment — sample size is too small to generalize. Recommend analyzing a larger set of recent comments, commenter accounts (real profiles vs. throwaway accounts), timing patterns, and the mix of question-type vs. generic/emoji comments to better assess overall authenticity and audience quality." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question/concern", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks medical/aesthetic advice and expresses concern about a specific side effect (sagging skin after frown-line treatment). Indicates genuine information-seeking engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a direct, specific question in German about a treatment side effect ('Kann man irgendwas tun, dass die Haut ums Auge nicht so hängt nach einer Zornesfaltenbehandlung?'). Features supporting authenticity: conversational tone, a small typo ('irgwndwas'), topical specificity, and no generic praise or emoji-laden influencer-style language. These traits point to a real user seeking advice rather than a bot or paid/promotional comment. However, this is only one data point — you cannot reliably judge the overall comment authenticity or audience quality from it alone. For advertising feasibility: this comment suggests that the influencer's audience includes genuinely interested people asking product/service-related questions (a positive signal for advertisers in medical/aesthetic niches). Still, recommend further checks before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (followers, activity, prior comments), reply rate from the influencer, overall engagement rate, timing patterns, and follower authenticity (bot detection). Based on this lone comment, I give a moderate overall suitability score (55) but low confidence (35) due to limited evidence." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only praise (fire emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval and signal positive reaction; functions as low-information engagement (social signaling or quick endorsement), may also be used by bots or mass-engagement services." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided consisting of five fire emojis. Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine followers (quick positive reaction) and from inorganic engagement (bots or paid comment farms). Given the absence of contextual text, account/profile data, timestamps, or multiple similar comments to analyze patterns, there is a moderate risk the comment is not high-quality organic engagement. For advertising-feasibility assessment this comment alone is weak evidence of meaningful audience interest or influence. Recommended next steps before purchase: review a larger sample of comments on the post and other recent posts, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (activity, follower/following ratios, posting history), check comment timing patterns (many comments posted within short windows), and compare engagement rates (likes/comments) against follower count and niche benchmarks. Based on the single emoji comment, proceed with caution — insufficient signal to justify confidence in genuine, high-value engagement." }

Text: Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses appreciation/praise for the creators' skill and gives social approval (boosts perceived credibility)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Goldene Hände bei euch beiden, approved 🥰💓') is a direct, positive compliment in German praising the creators' skill ('golden hands') and signalling approval with emojis. It appears natural (no obvious bot patterns, no promotional links, personalized phrasing), so estimated fakeness is low. However, this is only one comment — too small a sample to draw reliable conclusions about overall engagement quality or audience authenticity. For an advertising decision, this is a weakly positive signal but insufficient on its own; request a larger comment sample, likes-to-followers ratio, comment timestamps, account quality of commenters, and detection of repetitive/generic comment patterns before committing. Overall suitability for ad purchase: borderline/moderate (some positive social proof but not enough evidence of consistent, authentic engagement)." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple support/affection; low informational value; visible engagement boost without clear purchase intent" } ], "interpretation": "The only available comment is three heart emojis — a generic, low-effort positive reaction. Emoji-only responses are common from genuine followers as well as from bots, engagement pods, or farmed accounts; by themselves they give little signal about real audience engagement, sentiment depth, or conversion likelihood. Given the single comment and lack of commenter profile/context, there is moderate uncertainty about fakeness. This data point alone is insufficient to judge advertising suitability: it suggests some positive surface-level engagement but provides no evidence of purchase intent, audience relevance, or comment authenticity. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower count, activity), overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), and comment content variety before deciding on ad purchase." }

Text: Was würde diese Behandlung im Set den kosten?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "direct question / product inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for the price of a treatment/set — indicates purchase interest or intent to learn cost for potential booking/purchase." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (German: 'Was würde diese Behandlung im Set den kosten?') is a straightforward, specific pricing question and reads as a genuine prospective-customer inquiry rather than a generic/or scripted praise comment. Fakeness is assessed low because the language is natural, specific, and shows transactional intent. However, one comment is insufficient to draw robust conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising feasibility: this is a small positive signal (shows at least individual interest), but the sample size is too limited to rely on; request the full comment set, overall engagement metrics (likes, saves, replies), follower demographics, and a pattern of similar engagement before making a purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Direct booking / conversion intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "User expresses intent to book an appointment with the influencer (direct lead / potential customer). Signals high-quality, action-oriented engagement rather than generic praise." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is positive, specific and action-oriented (\"I will make an appointment with you soon\"). Its natural phrasing, emoji and specificity make it likely genuine rather than a generic bot or paid praise — hence a low fakeness score. However, this is only one comment; the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall authenticity of the commentator pool or typical engagement quality. For advertising purchase decisions this comment is encouraging (shows real conversion potential), but insufficient evidence alone. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments across multiple posts, check commenter account authenticity (profiles, activity, follower counts), review engagement rate vs. follower count, look for repeated/templated comments, and examine reply/DM conversion follow-through before finalizing ad spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/ambiguous follower comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express affection/engagement or playful compliment (reaction to post content), likely personal interaction rather than promotional or spam." } ], "interpretation": "Comment text (German): \"Bei dir fühlt man auch nichts 🥰💁🏻‍♀️\" — literal sense: \"With you one also doesn't feel anything\"; tone appears playful/affectionate given the emojis (smiling face with hearts, woman tipping hand). Purpose: short, informal engagement likely from a follower or acquaintance offering a light compliment or teasing response. Indicators of authenticity: specific phrasing and use of nuanced emojis make it less like standard spam/generic bot comments (e.g., no repeated phrases, no emojis-only spam, no link or CTA). Fakeness assessment: low (15/100) because it reads personal and context-specific, but certainty is not absolute without broader account/comment patterns. Overall assessment for advertising feasibility: very limited input — a single, benign comment is insufficient evidence of strong, authentic engagement. Recommendation: request more data (total comments, likes, follower count, comment diversity, timing, repeated commenters). Based solely on this one comment, I rate overall suitability low–moderate (30/100) with moderate uncertainty; do not base an ad buy decision on this alone." }

Text: Botox in den trapezius…😳

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "topic-specific reaction / surprise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise/curiosity about a cosmetic treatment (Botox in the trapezius). Likely intended to draw attention, signal concern or prompt discussion rather than to compliment or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Botox in den trapezius…😳') reads as a genuine, context-specific reaction: it references a medical/cosmetic procedure, uses German, and includes an emoji conveying astonishment. These features reduce likelihood of it being bot/spam (hence low fakeness score). However, one comment is an extremely small sample and cannot establish general audience authenticity or sentiment. For advertising purchase decisions this indicates at least some topical engagement (people notice/comment on procedures), but there is insufficient volume, diversity (no compliments, questions, calls to action), or repeated commenters to judge real follower quality or brand-safety risk. Recommended next steps: collect a larger comment sample across multiple posts, examine comment timestamps and user profiles for real accounts vs. suspicious patterns, check engagement rate (likes/comments vs. follower count), and screen for recurring negative sentiment about medical procedures. Based on current data, treat this post as inconclusive/low-confidence for ad purchase decisions." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement / quick engagement / low-effort social proof. Signals a reaction but carries little informative value about genuine interest or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a low-effort emoji response (three laughing emojis). This kind of comment is common, can be posted by a genuine follower or by low-quality engagement farms/bots, and by itself provides minimal evidence about audience quality or campaign suitability. Fakeness assessment is mildly low (30) but with limited confidence because one comment is insufficient data. For an advertising decision, this single data point is not meaningful: request a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter profiles (real accounts, activity, followers), examine comment diversity, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and overall engagement rate before proceeding. Current signal suggests caution — more investigation required." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three laughing-face emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). This is a low-effort, non-substantive engagement signal. It likely comes from a genuine follower reacting emotionally, but such emoji-only comments are also commonly produced by casual/inactive accounts or automated/batch engagement services. With one comment there is very little signal to judge authenticity or audience quality. For advertising decisions this comment offers no evidence of purchase intent, product interest, or an engaged, responsive community. Recommendation: gather more data (total comment sample, unique commenter profiles, like-to-follower ratio, timing/patterns of comments, audience demographics) and run profile checks on commenters before concluding on ad purchase feasibility." }

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": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Promotional / Branded jingle (ad copy)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Explicit product promotion/brand awareness — likely reposting official marketing text or a scripted endorsement to generate positive product visibility." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a verbatim-sounding jingle for a specific product (Zott Sahnejoghurt). It lacks personalization or conversation cues (no reference to the post, no questions, no emojis beyond a single music emoji) and reads like official ad copy. This pattern is consistent with either: (a) a brand/agency posting promotional text, (b) an automated/bot-driven comment, or (c) a highly motivated fan repeating the ad jingle. Given the lack of organic markers, I assess the comment as probably inauthentic/promotional (fakeness score 70). For influencer advertising decisions this isolated comment weakly suggests inorganic engagement; however, a robust decision requires analysis of the entire comment set, commenter account profiles, follower quality, engagement rate, and presence of many similar comments. If many comments are similar or come from low-quality accounts, reduce trust in engagement and negotiate price/metrics accordingly. If this is an isolated instance among otherwise genuine comments, it is less concerning. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of recent comments and audit commenter accounts before finalizing ad purchase." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/opinion (product mention)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal observation about the product/label and a personal qualifier ('I don't drink alcohol'); not promotional, likely conversational or humorous." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a personal, non-promotional remark referencing the slogan on a Jägermeister bottle and stating the commenter does not drink alcohol. This looks like genuine organic engagement rather than bot/spam behavior: short, context-specific and containing a personal disclosure. However, one comment is an extremely small sample size and provides limited signal about overall audience quality or influencer effectiveness for advertising. For ad-purchase decisions this comment is neutral-to-slightly negative for alcohol promotion (user explicitly declines alcohol) and does not indicate enthusiastic audience interest or clear call-to-action behavior. Recommendation: analyze a larger set of comments (volume, sentiment breakdown, repetition patterns), likes, follower authenticity metrics, and comment-to-follower ratios before deciding. Current assessment: low apparent fakeness but insufficient engagement quality to justify a strong positive buy recommendation." }

Text: Das ist beeindruckend 👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic praise / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and provide positive social proof (short, low-effort compliment with emoji)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single visible comment: \"Das ist beeindruckend 👏\" (German: \"That is impressive 👏\"). This is a brief, positive, low-effort engagement likely intended to show approval and boost apparent popularity. Such comments are common from genuine followers but are also the type bots or paid comment farms use because they are generic and widely applicable. Given only one comment and no contextual signals (number of total comments, likes on the comment, commenter profile, timing, comment diversity, language mix, or reply threads), the sample is far too small to judge overall authenticity or audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects that the comment could easily be genuine; the moderate uncertainty reflects that generic positive comments are also a common indicator of inorganic engagement. For an advertising decision, this single comment provides negligible evidence of a real, engaged audience. Recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity), engagement rates (likes, saves, views), and timing patterns before buying advertising or collaborations." }

Text: All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive personal engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses positive sentiment/support and references a specific recurring event (monthly parties) — likely an inside comment from a follower, signaling familiarity and warm reaction" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: a colloquial German remark ('All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️') with emojis and a specific reference. This reads as a genuine, positive follower response (not a generic bot-style compliment). Fakeness is therefore low, but the sample size is tiny so confidence is moderate. For advertising purchase decisions this single comment is insufficient evidence of reliable engagement or audience quality. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments for patterns (variety, time distribution, language naturalness), check like-to-follower ratio and comment frequency, and examine commenters' profiles for real accounts versus suspicious/bot indicators before making a buying decision." }

Text: Was geht 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Casual greeting / lightweight engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Friendly acknowledgement of the post (greeting, joke or banter). Low informational value for brand interest or conversion; primarily increases visible engagement metrics." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: a short, colloquial German message with laughing emojis ('Was geht 😂😂😂'). This reads as a casual, likely follower-driven engagement rather than a product-relevant or promotional comment. Such brief emoji-rich comments are low signal for audience intent and can occur both from genuine followers and low-effort bot accounts; because the text is localized and idiomatic, it leans toward genuine, but the sample is too small to be confident. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single comment is insufficient evidence of meaningful or authentic audience interest. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter account quality (age, follower ratio, posting history), and other engagement metrics (likes, save/share rate, comment-to-follower ratio) before purchasing ad space or partnerships." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji-rich positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enthusiasm/approval and provides lightweight engagement (social proof); could be genuine fan reaction or a generic engagement comment used to boost metrics." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (\"🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it\") is a brief, emoji-heavy positive reaction. This pattern is common among genuine followers reacting quickly and informally, but it is also a frequent format for low-effort or automated engagement (bots, engagement pods, or paid commenters). With only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. The moderate fakeness score reflects the ambiguity: the comment is generic enough to be faked but equally consistent with genuine responses. For an advertising purchase decision, this single data point is insufficient — review a larger sample of recent comments, comment diversity (language, length, specific references to the post), commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), and engagement ratios (likes vs. comments vs. follower count) before concluding. Recommendations: collect at least 50–100 recent comments and perform profile sampling to raise assessment confidence." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "literary/quoted comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Engagement/creative expression — commenter quotes a famous poem line (Goethe's 'Erlkönig') likely to be witty, nostalgic, or to draw attention; not promotional or spam." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: a German literary quote ('Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind?'), the opening line of Goethe's 'Erlkönig'. This reads as a genuine, creative engagement rather than a bot-like or promotional remark. Because the sample size is one, assessment confidence is limited. Low fakeness score reflects the comment's specificity and cultural reference, but the overall usefulness of the comment set for judging influencer authenticity or advertising feasibility is poor — one creative comment does not demonstrate sustained, meaningful audience interaction. Recommendation: obtain more data (total comments, like-to-follower ratio, comment diversity, timestamps, repeated commenters) before making an advertising decision. Current overall score (30/100) reflects low confidence in engagement depth and insufficient evidence of active, authentic community around the post." }

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": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "technical/informational (firefighting)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide operational instructions and technical guidance; signal subject-matter expertise and engage peers. The laughing emoji adds a light/teasing tone." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears authentic and authored by someone with practical firefighting knowledge: it gives specific instructions about an underground hydrant, distributor placement, routing a pipe to a fire section, and a tongue-in-cheek remark about laying a C-line oneself. There are no markers of common bot/fake behavior (generic praise, suspiciously repetitive phrasing, sales links, or irrelevant hashtags). However, this is only one comment — the sample is too small to judge overall audience quality. For influencer advertising decisions, this comment suggests a niche, technical or practitioner audience (useful if your campaign targets first responders or related equipment), but is insufficient evidence of broad, commercial, or consumer engagement. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments, analyze commenter profiles (follower counts, bios, posting behavior), measure like-to-comment ratios, comment diversity and timing patterns to better assess authenticity and audience fit." }

Text: Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/supportive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval/appreciation of the content; emotional support (includes heart emoji)." }, { "type": "short/generic", "count": 0, "purpose": "Very short compliments without specific reference to content (could be low-effort engagement)." }, { "type": "promotional/spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "Self-promotion, links, or advertising within comments." }, { "type": "bot-like/repetitive", "count": 0, "purpose": "Copy-paste replies, repeated phrases across many posts or obviously automated messages." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛') is a short, positive/supportive remark with an emoji. It reads as genuine praise rather than an obvious bot or promotional message. Because only one comment is provided, confidence is limited — short positive comments can be authentic follower feedback but can also appear in low-effort engagement farms. There is low probability of fakery (fakeness_score 15) but with moderate uncertainty (fakeness_confidence 50) due to lack of context (no commenter profile, no thread, no volume/timing patterns). Overall suitability for advertising purchase cannot be determined from this single comment; the overall score 40 reflects insufficient evidence of robust, authentic engagement. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check commenter account quality (age, follower counts, avatars, comment history), comment-to-follower ratio, comment timing patterns, and look for repeated/generic phrases indicating bulk or purchased comments." }

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": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "nostalgic/educational-humorous", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a memory/inside joke (Latin grammar declension), signal community membership (IYKYK), and add lighthearted engagement (emoji laughter). Not promotional or generic." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is content-specific, referencing Latin declension rules and ending with 'IYKYK' and a laughing emoji. That indicates a genuine, contextual reaction—someone recalling school knowledge and making an inside-joke comment to other followers. This looks organic rather than bot-like or paid promotional content: it contains topical substance, correct grammar, and personal voice. Limitations: analysis is based on one comment only, so you cannot assess volume, audience composition, or systemic inauthentic behavior across the account. For advertising decisions, this single authentic-seeming comment is a small positive signal (real people engaging with content in a topical way), but it is insufficient alone to conclude overall audience quality. Recommendation: sample many comments across multiple recent posts, check like-to-comment ratios, commenter profiles (accounts, follower counts, bios), timing patterns, and audience demographics before finalizing ad spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Skeptical / Sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Challenge authenticity of the content, express humor/skepticism, and provoke engagement" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Wer beweist, dass da kein Teleprompter war? 😂') is a skeptical, humorous remark that questions the authenticity of the creator's performance. Its phrasing is specific and includes an emoji, which makes it more likely to be organic rather than generic bot spam. There are no clear indicators of automation (no generic praise, no links, not repetitive). Given only one comment, confidence is limited — the assessment favors low fakeness but should be validated by reviewing more comments and the commenter's profile (age of account, follower/following ratio, activity). For advertising feasibility: a skeptical but engaged audience can be positive (shows attention and critical thinking) but also signals that the audience may scrutinize sponsored content; more comprehensive analysis (volume and sentiment of comments, engagement rate, follower authenticity, and audience demographics) is required before a buying decision." }

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": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "quoted/nostalgic anecdote (mixed-language, poetic)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a remembered line/quote and a personal reaction (nostalgia/mental imprint); not clearly engaging with the post's content or promoting anything." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a long, unusual, mixed-language (English/German) remark that reads like a quoted line or fragment the commenter says has been in their head for 30+ years. Its grammar and odd phrasing make it appear non-standard but not like typical short generic bot praise. This suggests a real (likely German-speaking) user posting a remembered quote or thought rather than a coordinated promotional or bot comment. The content is ambiguous and contains potentially sensitive phrasing (\"take a girl behind the door...\"), so it could require moderation review depending on the account's policy. For influencer advertising assessment: the comment does not indicate product interest, endorsement, or useful audience engagement metrics (no question, no call-to-action, no mention of brand/product). Overall this single comment provides weak evidence of an engaged, relevant audience and thus limited added confidence for ad purchase. Recommended action: treat as organic but low-value engagement; check the broader comment set for more representative signals and screen for moderation issues." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "nostalgic/humorous user reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express nostalgia and amusement; signals that the post triggered memory/brand recall and emotional resonance." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Werbespots aus den 90ern… einfach ins Gehirn gebrannt 😂') reads as a genuine, organic reaction expressing nostalgia and amusement. It indicates the content evokes memory/brand recall, which is a positive signal for emotional engagement. However, one comment is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about overall engagement quality or authenticity. Recommended next steps before ad purchase: review total comment volume, like-to-comment ratios, commenter account quality (real followers vs. bots), timing patterns, repeated generic comments, and diversity of reactions across multiple posts." }

Text: Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product/service request / expression of interest", "count": 1, "purpose": "The commenter asks for a 'Full Freeze' (likely a product/service or treatment), indicating intent or interest in obtaining it." }, { "type": "Emoji / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Use of laughing and hand-raising emojis to signal lighthearted, positive engagement and a natural human tone." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: 'Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️'. It reads as a genuine, organic user expressing interest in a product/service (likely named 'Full Freeze') and adding friendly emojis. There are several authenticity markers: natural phrasing in German, contextual reference to a service/product, and emoji use — all consistent with a real follower rather than a generic bot reply. Given the extremely small sample (one comment), this is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions about overall audience quality or the authenticity of the influencer's comment section. For ad-purchase decisions, this single positive comment is mildly encouraging but too limited; it signals some audience interest but provides no information on volume, repeat commenters, conversion intent, or whether comments are largely genuine across the account. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments (diversity, repetition, timing), check commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), calculate engagement rate (likes + comments relative to followers), look for repetitive or templated language across posts (bot signal), and review historical campaign performance or UGC conversions. Based on this one comment alone, I rate fakeness low (10/100) but have limited confidence and assign a conservative overall suitability score (35/100) for advertising until more data is reviewed." }

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": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Sarcastic / Critical (humorous trolling)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Mock the influencer's appearance/lifestyle and draw attention; express skepticism/negative sentiment while using humor/irony to provoke engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The comment is informal, sarcastic and likely organic (low likelihood of being bot-generated or spam). It mocks the influencer for using Botox and boasts about the commenter’s own cosmetic procedures in an exaggerated, humorous way — a combination of criticism and trolling meant to attract reactions. As a single sample this suggests some members of the audience may be skeptical or mocking rather than purely positive. This is not evidence of large-scale fake engagement, but does indicate polarization in sentiment. For advertising feasibility, one sarcastic/negative comment is not decisive: recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, like sentiment distribution, ratio of genuine replies, commenter account quality, and engagement rates before purchasing ad placement or partnership." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; low-information engagement signal; can be genuine quick response or generic/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment (\"😂\") is available — an emoji-only response that signals amusement or a positive reaction but carries very little informational value about audience quality. Emoji-only comments are common in organic engagement but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or low-effort accounts; with just one sample it is impossible to reliably distinguish. Given this limited input, there is a moderate suspicion of low-quality or possibly inauthentic engagement (fakeness score 65) but confidence is low-to-moderate (40) because the sample is too small. For advertising feasibility the current signal is weak (overall score 45, confidence 35). Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts and analyze commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), comment diversity (substantive vs. generic), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and reuse of identical comments across posts. Use those metrics to re-assess authenticity and audience quality before purchase." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive affect; lightweight engagement with no product/brand signal or call-to-action. Low informational value for advertisers." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists solely of three laughing emojis (😂😂😂). Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine quick reactions from real followers, low-effort engagement, or occasionally used by bots/engagement farms to inflate counts. With a single example there is insufficient evidence to call it clearly fake or clearly authentic — hence a modest fakeness score with limited confidence. For advertising feasibility this comment provides almost no purchase intent, no feedback on product/creative, and no conversational depth. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments, commenter account metadata (age, follower counts, posting behavior), likes-to-comments ratio, timing patterns, and repetition of similar comments across posts. Look for red flags (many identical emoji comments, many newly created commenter accounts, repetitive usernames, or sudden comment spikes) and positive signs (diverse, specific comments, questions, user handles tied to real profiles). Based on this single emoji comment, the post offers low evidence of authentic, high-value engagement for ad targeting or influencer-driven conversions." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement or positive reaction; lightweight engagement signaling appreciation or emotional response without substantive endorsement or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two \"😂\" emojis. Emoji-only replies are common among genuine followers and also used by low-effort bots; on its own this comment provides very little evidence for or against authenticity. Fakeness risk is low-to-moderate (score ~30) because the comment is plausible from a real user but also could be a generic engagement token. Confidence in this judgement is limited due to the extremely small sample size. For advertising feasibility, this single emoji does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, purchase intent, or conversational engagement. Recommend sampling a larger set of recent comments (50–200), checking commenter account quality (profile photos, follower counts, posting history, follow/follower ratios), looking for repetitive/generic text patterns, timing clusters, and comparing comment diversity to follower count before making a buy decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction and boost visible engagement; no substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('😂😂😂😂😂🙌') is a low-information emoji reaction indicating amusement or approval. As a one-off data point it cannot reliably indicate audience quality. Such emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers who react quickly and from engagement-bot accounts or engagement pods — hence a moderate chance of being non-authentic. Given only one comment, there is insufficient evidence to support advertising spend: diversity of comment types, commenter profile checks (account age, follower counts, posting history), comment timestamps, and overall engagement rate are needed to assess real audience interest and authenticity. Current assessment: low confidence in audience quality for ad targeting; recommend collecting a larger sample of comments and performing follower authenticity checks before purchase." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; low informational value and primarily signals lightweight engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: three laughing-face emojis. This is a low-effort, non-textual engagement that does not convey opinion about a product or influencer beyond a basic positive reaction. Such comments are common both from genuine followers (quick reaction) and from low-quality/bot accounts (generic emoji to inflate engagement), so certainty is limited. Given the single emoji, the fakeness estimate is modest but uncertain (some risk that lightweight reactions are automated). For advertising feasibility, this one comment gives minimal evidence of meaningful audience interest or intent to purchase. To make a reliable decision, examine more comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), overall like-to-comment ratio, comment diversity, posting timestamps (sudden bursts), and repeated/similar comments across posts. Based on the lone emoji, treat engagement as superficial and inconclusive for ad-buy decisions." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement / lightweight engagement. Low-effort reaction that signals attention but provides no endorsement, purchase intent, or substantive feedback; can be posted by genuine followers or automated accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is extremely small (one comment: \"😂😂\"), so any authenticity or quality judgment is tentative. An emoji-only comment is common among real followers but is also typical of low-effort bot replies; therefore fakeness risk is moderate-low. For advertising decisions this single comment provides little evidence of an engaged, brand-ready audience — it demonstrates attention but not intent or meaningful advocacy. Recommendation: analyze a larger set of comments and additional signals before purchasing ads (look at comment diversity and depth, commenter profile quality, timestamps, like-to-comment ratio, audience demographics, saved/DMs metrics, and follower growth patterns). Based on the current limited data, I would not rely on this post alone to justify an ad buy." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; low informational content; serves primarily to increase visible engagement metrics (social proof)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a single laughing emoji (😂). Emoji-only comments are common and can be posted by genuine followers, acquaintances, or automated/bot accounts. Because this comment contains no text, it provides very little signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or genuine interest in sponsored content. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji comments are low-effort and sometimes generated by engagement pods or bots, but are often authentic as well; confidence is limited by the tiny sample size. For advertising feasibility, this single low-information comment suggests weak evidence of meaningful engagement—brands typically prefer substantive comments, conversions, or verified audience metrics. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, comment diversity (questions, product mentions), engagement rate relative to follower count, follower demographics, and recent comment timestamps before making a buy decision." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "quick reaction / social-proof; signals engagement but provides no substantive feedback or intent to purchase" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided is a single laughing emoji (😂). This is a low-effort, emoji-only reaction that indicates some level of engagement but carries very little signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are produced by genuine followers as lightweight reactions but are also commonly used by bots or coordinated accounts to inflate visible engagement, so there is a moderate probability of inauthenticity (fakeness score 40) with low confidence due to the extremely small sample size. For influencer-advertising decisions this one comment is insufficient: it neither confirms a real, engaged audience nor proves manipulation. I recommend collecting more data (full recent comment set, unique commenter handles, like counts, follower quality, comment timing/repetition patterns, and comment diversity) before making a buying decision. With only this comment, the overall suitability for advertising is low-to-medium (overall score 45) and the confidence in that assessment is low (30)." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/laughter; low-effort engagement that signals the post is entertaining but provides no purchase intent or detailed feedback" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three laughing emojis. This is a low-information, low-effort engagement. Such comments are commonly genuine reactions but are also easy for bots or engagement farms to replicate, hence a modest fakeness concern. For advertising-feasibility purposes this comment does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, purchase intent, or detailed sentiment. Recommendation: evaluate a larger sample of comments, like-to-follower ratio, comment diversity (questions, personal stories, tagging), timing patterns, and follower authenticity before making ad-purchase decisions." }

Text: Ach 😆… Das kenne ich. 😆

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Relatable personal reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express empathy/recognition and signal relatability to the post; lightweight engagement using emoji to show amusement and connection." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Ach 😆… Das kenne ich. 😆' is a short, language-specific (German) reaction that reads as a genuine, spontaneous expression of recognition and amusement. It contains natural phrasing and casual emoji use, which lowers the likelihood of it being a bot or purchased engagement. However, this is only one comment: while it indicates at least one real follower interaction and positive sentiment, it is insufficient evidence to judge the overall authenticity or marketing value of the influencer's audience. For advertising decisions you should gather more data: volume and diversity of comments across multiple posts, comment timing patterns, commenter account quality (real profiles vs. throwaway/bot accounts), ratio of substantive comments to generic ones, likes per comment, and overall engagement rate. Based on this single comment, the signal is mildly positive but far from conclusive." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine correction / humorous engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Pointing out an apparent date/typo error in the post, seeking clarification and playfully engaging with the creator (uses emoji to indicate light tone)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“Moment 2007???? Meine Tochter ist 2017 geboren, das kann nicht sein 😂”) reads as a genuine user correction delivered in a humorous tone. It contains a personal reference (daughter's birth year), no commercial language or links, and a natural reaction emoji — all signs consistent with a real follower rather than a bot or paid promo comment. There is no evidence of mass-produced or generic responses. However, this is only one comment: sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising decisions, this comment is a positive sign (shows attentive, real users), but you should analyze a larger set of recent comments, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. likely fakes), timing patterns, engagement rate, and repeat commenters before finalizing a purchase." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👏1989

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-dominant reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval; low-effort engagement that signals positive reaction but carries little insight or conversion intent." }, { "type": "ambiguous numeric token", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short numeric string ('1989') appended to the reaction; could be a personal reference (birth year), an inside joke, or filler/spam indicator — meaning unclear without more context." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: repeated laughing emojis, a clap, and '1989'. This is low-information and low-value engagement: it signals a positive emotional reaction but no substantive feedback or intent to convert. The presence of many identical emojis could be either genuine low-effort engagement or a pattern sometimes seen in automated/spam comments; the added number is ambiguous. Given the tiny sample, I assessed moderate-low probability of fakery (fakeness_score 40) but with low confidence because one comment is insufficient to detect patterns. For advertising feasibility the comments offer weak support (overall_score 30) — they do not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, product-related conversation, or purchase intent. I recommend examining a larger sample of comments and commenter accounts (account age, profile completeness, comment repetition across posts, timing patterns, follower-to-like ratios) before making an ad spend decision." }

Text: Liebe deine Videos ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive praise / compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation and provide social reinforcement (engagement/affirmation)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Liebe deine Videos ❤️' (\"Love your videos\"). This is a short, generic positive comment that most likely comes from a genuine follower but could also be low-effort (or automated) engagement because it contains no personalized content. With only one comment there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this sample is weak — recommendations: inspect a larger set of recent comments for diversity (varying content, questions, critiques), check commenter profiles for real accounts and follower ratios, review like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns (bursts vs. organic), and other posts' engagement. Based on this single comment: low probability of fake engagement (fakeness_score 20) but limited confidence; overall recommendation is caution — request more comment data and account-level metrics before committing to ad spend." }

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": 75, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic personal anecdote / humorous reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "engagement and relatability — follower sharing a small personal memory and reacting with humor; not promotional or sales-driven" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a casual, first-person anecdote in German about realizing the commenter has had their driver's license for 20 years, finished with a laughing emoji. Linguistic cues (colloquial phrasing, emoji, no hashtags/links or marketing language) and topical specificity strongly suggest it is a genuine, organic reaction rather than a bot or paid/prompted comment. Purpose is to engage and relate to the post's content, not to promote. With only one comment available, sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience quality, but this example indicates authentic follower engagement. For advertising decisions, this is mildly positive: authentic-sounding comments support feasibility, but you should analyze a larger set of recent comments, like-to-comment ratio, commenter profiles, and overall follower quality before purchasing ads or partnerships." }

Text: Mir gehts genau so……….

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "empathetic/supportive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express shared feeling or solidarity with the post (social engagement). Low informational or commercial intent; primarily to show empathy or relatability." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Mir gehts genau so……….') was provided. This is a generic empathetic response that likely comes from a genuine follower expressing solidarity; such comments are common and low-value for direct advertising conversion signals. The brevity and generic wording make it possible (but not likely) that it is automated or copy-pasted across posts, so I assign a low-to-moderate fakeness score. With just one comment, overall assessment of the post's comment quality and audience authenticity is very limited. For ad-buy decisions you should request a larger sample (more comments, commenter profiles, timestamps, follower/following ratios, and engagement patterns). Based on this single data point, the post shows some visible engagement but little evidence of commercial intent or high-quality targeted audience, so I rate its current advertising suitability low–moderate." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/acknowledgement; low informational value, simple engagement signal" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of repeated laughing emojis provides very limited signal. Short emoji comments are common from both real followers and low-effort bot accounts (or engagement farms), so I assess a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 60) but with low confidence due to the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility this is weak evidence of a genuine, high-value audience: no substantive feedback, no conversational thread, and no diversity of commenters. Recommendation: gather more data before buying ads — analyze full comment sets across multiple posts (variety, depth, unique commenters), like-to-follower ratio, commenter profiles, timing patterns, and perform manual spot checks for repeated/generic replies. Based on the single emoji comment alone I would not consider this sufficient proof of a high-quality engaged audience (overall_score 30)." }

Text: Marmeladenglasmoment so real

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Relatable/expressive personal comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses relatability and an emotional reaction to the post (shares a moment label + \"so real\"). Not promotional, not asking for engagement—aims to signal personal connection/resonance." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"Marmeladenglasmoment so real.\" This reads as an organic, content-specific reaction (mix of German phrase and English) rather than a generic compliment, call-to-action, or obvious bot/spam message. It likely indicates a real user felt the post resonated. However, a single comment is a very small sample size: there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity, engagement quality, audience demographics, or ad-readiness of the influencer. Recommendation: collect more comments, like counts, commenter profiles and follower/commenter overlap, timestamps, and comment diversity before making advertising decisions. Given the single authentic-seeming remark, estimated fakeness is low (8/100) but confidence is moderate (60%) because of the tiny sample. Overall suitability for advertising is uncertain — an intermediate score (45/100) with low confidence (30%) pending broader comment and account data." }

Text: Hylaron

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Single-word brand/product mention / spam-like", "count": 1, "purpose": "Likely promotion or spam (dropping a product/brand name). Could also be a shorthand endorsement or an inside remark, but format is typical of bot/spam or opportunistic promotional comments." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Hylaron.\" That comment is a single token that looks like a brand/product name. Single-word, contextless comments are commonly produced by bots, spam accounts, or opportunistic commenters trying to insert a product name for visibility. With a single example there is very limited signal; the comment could also be from a genuine user leaving a brief reference or asking/abouting but lacks context. For influencer-ad feasibility this single comment is weak evidence of authentic, engaged audience interest. Recommended next steps before purchasing advertising: (1) audit commenter account(s) for profile completeness, follower/following ratio, posting history and whether they follow the influencer; (2) sample more comments across multiple posts to detect repetitive one-word comments or repeated usernames; (3) compare comment volume and quality versus follower count and like-to-comment ratio; (4) check for clusters of brand mentions or externally pointing links. Given available data, treat comments as low-quality signal and proceed with caution — require further comment/account-level verification and broader engagement metrics before committing to advertising." }

Text: *Ehemann der Schwägerin genauso 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal/relational joke", "count": 1, "purpose": "Humor and signalling familiarity (referencing a specific person in the poster's social circle), casual engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment '*Ehemann der Schwägerin genauso 😂' is a short, colloquial German remark referencing a specific relative (\"sister‑in‑law's husband\") and ending with a laughing emoji. Linguistically it reads as spontaneous and personal rather than templated or promotional, so the likelihood of it being a genuine follower or acquaintance is higher than being fake (fakeness score low). However, this analysis is based on one comment only — there is no broader comment sample, no metadata (usernames, timestamps, likes on the comment) and no context about overall post engagement. Because of that, confidence in both the fakeness and overall influencer assessment is moderate-to-low. Practical implications for ad purchasing: a single informal comment suggests at best a small or close-knit audience; it does not demonstrate broad, engaged reach. Before making ad decisions, request the full comments dataset, engagement metrics (likes, saves, view counts), follower authenticity checks, and patterns across multiple posts to better judge reach and ad effectiveness." }

Text: Nh anstatt ne 😱

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine_conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "short reaction — expresses surprise/correction about wording ('Nh' instead of 'ne')" }, { "type": "spam_promotional", "count": 0, "purpose": "promote products, services, or links" }, { "type": "bot_like_generic", "count": 0, "purpose": "generic compliments or emoji-only comments typical of bots" }, { "type": "negative_or_troll", "count": 0, "purpose": "insults, coordinated negativity, or antagonistic comments" }, { "type": "question_or_request", "count": 0, "purpose": "asks questions or requests more information" }, { "type": "other", "count": 0, "purpose": "comments that don't fit the above categories" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Nh anstatt ne 😱') reads as a brief, likely genuine conversational reaction — possibly a correction or expression of surprise about wording. It shows no clear markers of spam or bot activity (no promotional content, generic praise, or repeated patterns). However, this is a single, ambiguous data point: confidence in labeling is limited. For advertising feasibility, the comment quality here is neutral-to-slightly-positive but insufficient to judge overall audience authenticity or engagement. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments (diversity of commenters, timing, repetition patterns), engagement rate relative to follower count, commenter handle inspection (real vs. suspicious accounts), and presence of coordinated or generic comments before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Vermissung

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emotional / personal (single-word)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses longing or missing the poster (affective engagement); low-effort engagement intended to show support or prompt a personal connection." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: the single German word \"Vermissung\" (roughly \"missing\" or \"longing\"). This reads as an emotional, follower-type response rather than promotional or generic bot copy. Strengths: content appears context-specific and plausible as a genuine follower expressing that they miss the influencer or their content. Weaknesses / caveats: a single short word is low informational value — it could be a genuine fan, a low-effort engagement from a casual follower, or (less likely) an automated/generic comment. Assessment confidence is limited because there is only one short comment and no surrounding data (timestamp patterns, commenter handle(s), profile details, like counts, reply context, repeated comments across posts, language distribution, or volume). For advertising feasibility: this single comment alone provides weak evidence of a healthy engaged audience. It indicates some personal attachment but is not a reliable indicator of organic reach or conversion potential. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of comments across posts, check commenter account authenticity (profile age, photo, follower/following ratio, activity), look for repeated/templated comments, compare comment-to-follower and like-to-comment ratios, and inspect time patterns and hashtag/URL spam." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine_question/curiosity", "count": 1, "purpose": "User expresses unfamiliarity with a campaign/term ('Marmeladenglasmoment') and asks (implicitly) for clarification; indicates engagement and potential interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads naturally in German, uses an emoji, and expresses genuine unfamiliarity with the coined term 'Marmeladenglasmoment'. It appears to be an organic engagement rather than spam or bot activity. For influencer advertising feasibility this comment has mixed implications: positive in that it shows real user engagement and prompts interaction (an opportunity for the influencer/brand to clarify and educate), but it also signals that the audience may not immediately understand the campaign language/concept. The sample size (one comment) is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience quality or the prevalence of fake comments. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments for patterns (repetitive phrasing, timing, account maturity), check commenter profiles for authenticity, and evaluate engagement rate and comment-to-like ratio before finalizing ad purchase decisions." }

Text: In Hamburg: Kohldampf. 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal/humorous engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express humor and personal reaction to the post to engage with the creator (uses slang and an emoji)." }, { "type": "Location mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Indicates the commenter is in or referencing a specific place (Hamburg), which can suggest a local, real-world audience." } ], "interpretation": "The comment 'In Hamburg: Kohldampf. 😂' appears colloquial and specific (German slang for being very hungry plus a laughing emoji), which makes it likely genuine rather than bot-generated or purchased — hence a low fakeness estimate (~10/100) with moderate confidence. However, this analysis is based on a single comment sample, which is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions, you should review a larger sample of comments across posts, timing patterns, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created or suspicious), reply threads, and like-to-follower ratios. Based solely on this comment: plausible authentic engagement but not enough evidence to confidently recommend or reject a partnership (overall score ~35/100, low–moderate confidence)." }

Text: Bauchbewohner

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short single-word, likely organic", "count": 1, "purpose": "brief personal reaction/affectionate reference or inside-joke; low informational value for advertisers" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: the German word \"Bauchbewohner\" (literally \"belly dweller\", commonly used to refer affectionately to a baby in the womb). Characteristics: single-word, language-specific, not a generic praise or obvious marketing tag. Assessment: low probability of being fake because it is language-specific and contextually coherent, but confidence is moderate because there is no commenter metadata (age, account history), no timing/like patterns, and no additional comments to compare. For advertising feasibility: a single, low-information comment does not demonstrate strong, targetable engagement or community enthusiasm. This signal alone suggests caution—insufficient evidence of authentic, broad audience interaction. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, commenter account quality (real profiles, follower ratios), comment frequency and diversity, like-to-follower ratio, and typical comment sentiment. With more data you can more reliably judge authenticity and ad-fit." }

Text: Warum Sculptra?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question / information-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Follower asks why Sculptra was used — seeking clarification or explanation about the product/treatment mentioned in the post." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"Warum Sculptra?\" (German: \"Why Sculptra?\"). This looks like a genuine, organic question from a follower rather than spam or a bot — short, language-consistent, and contextually relevant to aesthetic/cosmetic content. There are no obvious signs of coordinated or fake engagement (no repeated phrases, no generic praise, no links/promotional tokens). However, with only one comment it's impossible to judge overall audience quality or typical engagement patterns. For advertising-buy decisions this datapoint is weak: it indicates at least some topical interest (useful for campaigns about Sculptra or similar treatments) but provides no evidence about comment volume, like-to-follower ratios, commenter account authenticity, sentiment distribution, or conversion potential. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of recent posts (comments, likes, follower demographics, commenter profiles and timestamps) before finalizing a purchase decision." }

Text: Schwiemu 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction / short colloquial", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or an inside joke (engagement via laughter). Likely a quick genuine reaction to content, uses slang ('Schwiemu' = mother-in-law) and laughing emojis to signal humor/familiarity." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment ('Schwiemu 😂😂😂') is a short, colloquial reaction in German that uses slang and multiple laughing emojis. It reads as a genuine, casual audience response (an amused or affectionate inside-joke) rather than a promotional or bot-like message. Fakeness risk is low but confidence is moderate because one comment is a very small sample — it cannot by itself demonstrate an authentic or engaged audience at scale. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is insufficient evidence: it indicates at least some real human interaction and topical familiarity, but you should review a larger sample of recent comments, like-to-comment ratios, follower demographics, repeated patterns (lots of single-emoji, generic praise, or spammy comments), and reply behavior before deciding. Recommended next steps: analyze 50–200 recent comments across multiple posts, check commenter profiles for real accounts, and compare engagement rate to follower count." }

Text: Mein Männe/Menne 😱

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/affectionate", "count": 1, "purpose": "Follower addressing the poster in a familiar way ('Mein Männe/Menne' ~ 'my man' / endearment) to express surprise or strong reaction; indicates personal connection or affection." }, { "type": "emoji-enhanced reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Use of the 😱 emoji to convey surprise/shock/amazed emotion; increases engagement signal but provides little substantive content." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment was provided, so sample size is extremely small and conclusions are limited. The comment reads as a familiar/personal reaction in German with an emphatic emoji. That pattern more closely matches an authentic follower expressing surprise or admiration than a generic bot template. However, with a single brief entry it's not possible to rule out other explanations (e.g., a duplicated comment across posts, paid commenter, or a low-effort bot mimicking colloquial phrasing).\n\nFor advertising purchase decisions this single comment is low-signal: it shows at least one engaged (likely positive) user but gives no reliable information about audience quality, engagement rate, comment diversity, audience demographics, or authenticity. Recommended next steps: inspect a larger sample of recent comments, look for repeated phrasing or copy-paste patterns, check commenter profiles for real accounts (bio, posting history, follower/following ratios), evaluate like counts vs. follower counts, and analyze linguistic variety and temporal patterns to better assess authenticity and commercial value." }

Text: Göttergatte /GöGa

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/insider reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Referencing or naming a spouse (Göttergatte) — likely an inside joke, identification of a person in the post, or a short conversational remark rather than promotional engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment ('Göttergatte /GöGa') is present. It appears to be a personal or familiar remark (naming/pointing to a spouse) rather than promotional, call-to-action, or spam. There is low signal to determine authenticity from a single brief comment; it looks more like genuine low-effort engagement (a friend or follower) than a bot-generated marketing comment, but evidence is limited. For advertising feasibility: current comment evidence is weak — low volume and minimal engagement make it insufficient to rely on for campaign performance prediction. Recommendation: obtain broader engagement metrics (total comments, likes, follower growth, comment diversity, timestamps, and account profiles) before making an ad buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Reaction / expressive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show surprise or amazement (emotional engagement using emojis)" }, { "type": "Conversational / suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Offer an alternative label/nickname (drives conversation or playful commentary)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided reads as organic, informal German with emojis and a playful suggestion (\"Mama/ Papa\" and \"BauchMama\"). It functions primarily as an expressive reaction and light conversational engagement rather than a promotional or generic compliment. Fakeness is assessed low (10/100) because phrasing is specific, context‑driven and not formulaic; confidence is moderate given only one comment. Overall assessment for advertising feasibility is neutral (50/100) — this single comment is consistent with genuine audience interaction, but it is insufficient to judge overall engagement quality or audience authenticity. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios, user profiles (follower counts, activity), and look for patterns of repetitive/generic comments or suspicious accounts before making an ad purchase decision." }

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": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical / observational", "count": 1, "purpose": "express skepticism about a platform trend and prompt discussion (non-promotional engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a personal, nuanced observation in German about an Instagram trend (\"Sorry, I lied... only revelations\") with an emoji, which reads as organic rather than templated or promotional. It functions as critique/engagement, not as an endorsement or bot-like praise. Given only one comment, the sample is too small to generalize about the post's overall authenticity or audience sentiment. The low fakeness score reflects that this individual comment likely originates from a real user, but the confidence is moderate because more comments and profile checks are needed. For advertising decisions, this single skeptical comment suggests there may be critical or discerning followers — recommend a deeper audit (more comments, comment repetition, commenter account age/activity, like-to-comment ratios, and follower quality) before purchasing ads. Overall feasibility is middling (45) with moderate uncertainty: proceed with further verification rather than immediate spend." }

Text: 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple positive reaction/affection and register engagement; low-effort signal that can boost algorithmic visibility. May be genuine (fan) or generic/bot-driven." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a heart-eyes emoji (\"😍\"). Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous: they often come from real followers offering quick positive feedback, but are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or automated engagement services. With one short comment there is very limited signal about audience quality, authenticity, or topical relevance. For ad-buy decisions this single data point is insufficient. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for depth (questions, namedrops), diversity of commenter accounts, repetition of identical comments, timing patterns, follower-to-comment ratio, commenter profiles (real-looking vs. newly created/empty), and presence of spam or promotional language. If many comments are similarly generic emojis or single-word replies, raise concern about engagement quality and consider requesting audience demographics, reach metrics, or third-party audit before purchasing advertising." }

Text: 🥹❄️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses an emotional/reactive response (support/affection). Also serves as lightweight engagement to increase visible activity; could be genuine follower reaction or a generic/botlike engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"🥹❄️❤️\". This is an emoji-only, emotionally positive reaction that likely signifies affection or being moved (pleading face + snowflake + heart), probably in response to a winter-themed or sentimental post. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by engagement pods or automated accounts because they are low-effort and safe. Given the single-sample context, I assign a modest probability of fakeness (30%) but with limited confidence (40%) because there is not enough data to detect patterns (repetition, commenter account characteristics, timing, volume). For advertising purchase feasibility, this single comment provides weak evidence of genuine audience interest or intent: it shows some engagement but no substantive feedback, call-to-action, or purchase intent. Overall ad-feasibility score is low-to-moderate (40) with low confidence (35). Recommendation: obtain the full comments dataset, commenter profiles, distribution of comment types across multiple posts, engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), and timing/repetition patterns before making ad-buy decisions." }

Text: ❄️☃️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Non-verbal positive/seasonal reaction (expresses affection or theme alignment). Low informational value; commonly used by genuine followers but also frequently produced by bots or low-effort engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ❄️☃️❤️ is an emoji-only, positive/seasonal reaction. It provides very little signal about genuine audience interest, purchase intent, or thoughtful engagement. Emoji-only comments are common from real fans but are also a typical pattern for automated/low-effort engagement (engagement farms, comment pods, bots). With only this comment available, I cannot reliably determine authenticity — hence a moderate fakeness score and moderate confidence. For advertising decisions, this comment alone is weak evidence of an engaged, valuable audience. Recommend evaluating: volume and variety of comments across posts, commenter profiles (followers, posting history), timing patterns (many similar emojis/comments in short windows), like-to-comment ratios, and average comment length/quality before proceeding with purchase." }

Text: ❄️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Lightweight engagement / emotional reaction (expresses mood or approval). Low-effort comment often used to show presence without substantive interaction; can be organic from a casual follower or produced by bots/engagement farms." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single emoji comment (❄️) is present. Emoji-only comments are low-information: they signal some engagement but provide no substantive feedback about content, product interest, or audience intent. Such comments are commonly produced by casual followers, fans, or automated/batch accounts; with only one instance it is impossible to reliably distinguish organic from inauthentic behavior. Given the minimal and low-quality comment, the post's visible comment signal is weak for advertising decision-making. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check ratios (likes vs comments), follower authenticity (follower growth, engagement rates), presence of meaningful conversation, and commenter profiles before proceeding with an ad buy. Based on the single emoji comment, treat comment quality as low and proceed with caution." }

Text: Man muss Prioritäten setzen 💉😂👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/sarcastic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/opinion about the post (jokingly 'set priorities'), signal approval using emojis and engage with the content." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Man muss Prioritäten setzen 💉😂👍' (\"One must set priorities\"). It reads as a short, joking/sarcastic reaction that likely references a topical element of the post (the syringe emoji suggests a vaccination/medical context). The comment is brief, contains multiple emojis, and shows light approval/engagement rather than substantive discussion. There are no obvious signs of automation (no repeated phrases, spammy links, or generic one-word replies), so fakeness is assessed low. However, confidence is limited because this assessment is based on a single comment. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient to judge audience quality or authenticity: more comments, commenter profiles, engagement rates (likes, comment timing, follower overlap), and patterns (repetition, language distribution) are needed. Based on the available sample, the engagement appears organic but minimal, so overall suitability for ad placement is uncertain—hence a moderate-low overall score. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter accounts for real profiles and consistent interaction, and measure comment-to-follower and like-to-follower ratios before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (laughing emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement / quick positive reaction; low informational value, likely aimed at engagement rather than discussion" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists entirely of repeated laughing-face emojis. This is a low-effort engagement signal: it indicates a positive or amused reaction but provides no substantive feedback, audience insight, or intent to purchase. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also the easiest type for bots or inorganic engagement to produce, so there is moderate uncertainty about authenticity. Given the extremely limited sample, this data point is insufficient to judge overall comment quality or audience relevance for advertising. Recommendation: obtain a larger and more representative sample of comments plus other metrics (engagement rate over time, comment diversity, follower authenticity, likes-to-followers ratio, replies, and audience demographics) before making an ad-buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Enthusiastic positive engagement / inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise and excitement (emotional endorsement) combined with a direct inquiry/CTA — indicates interest in participating or starting (possible sign-up, collaboration or service-use intent)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is in German, uses multiple emojis and an informal, natural phrasing: \"Großartig!!!👏🏼🤣🤣🤣 wann kann ich anfangen? 👍🏼🎉\". This reads as genuine enthusiastic engagement and a direct expression of intent or interest rather than a generic bot-like phrase. Indicators of authenticity: language specificity, question about \"when can I start?\", varied emojis and punctuation. Remaining uncertainty: with only one comment and no commenter profile data, automated or incentivized behavior cannot be ruled out. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is a positive sign of engaged followers but is insufficient evidence alone. Recommended next steps: audit a larger sample of comments, check commenter account quality (age, activity, follower ratios), comment timing patterns, overall engagement rate, and audience demographics before deciding on purchase." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/affection; low informational value. Could be from a genuine follower, an engagement pod member, or an automated/generic commenter." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a string of six heart emojis — a classic low-effort positive engagement signal that conveys enthusiasm but carries little informational value. Emoji-only comments are common from real fans but are also frequently produced by engagement pods or automated/comment-selling services. With only one comment and no metadata (commenter profile, timestamps, frequency of identical comments across posts, overall comment distribution, follower quality), the assessment is necessarily tentative. The moderate fakeness_score reflects that emoji-only comments are plausibly inorganic in many influencer contexts, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude they are fake. For advertising-buy decisions, this single data point is insufficient. Recommended next steps: audit several recent posts for patterns of identical/low-effort comments, inspect commenter profiles for signs of real accounts (posting history, followers, profile pictures), request the influencer's audience demographics and native analytics, and evaluate overall engagement rate and comment diversity. If those checks are not available, consider a small test campaign rather than a full purchase." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter; low-information engagement and social affirmation" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: \"😂😂😂\" — an emoji-only laughing reaction. This type of comment conveys amusement but provides no substantive content to judge sentiment beyond positive/entertained. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also used in engagement groups or by low-effort fake accounts, so authenticity is ambiguous. With a single short reaction there is insufficient evidence to assess the overall comment quality or the influencer's audience authenticity. For advertisement-feasibility decisions, you should obtain more data (number of comments across multiple posts, ratio of unique commenters to follower count, comment diversity and specificity, timestamps, liking accounts, follower authenticity checks, engagement rate, and audience demographics). Based on the lone emoji comment, I score comment fakeness as moderately uncertain (50) and give a low-to-moderate negative signal for ad purchase feasibility (30) — both with limited confidence because of the extremely small sample size." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement and social reinforcement rather than substantive feedback or product interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short sequence of laughing emojis (😂😂😂). Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine quick reactions, but they are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or bots to inflate engagement. With only one comment available, evidence is limited: this looks like low-value engagement that provides social proof (shows activity) but no insight into audience motivation, product interest, or purchase intent. For advertising decision-making, treat this as weak signal. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter’s profile (age, follower count, activity), check comment diversity and quality across multiple posts, review like-to-comment ratios and timing patterns, and look for repeated identical comments (which indicate inorganic behavior). If many comments are similar emoji-only replies, reliability for ad targeting is low and I'd be cautious about investing without deeper audience verification." }

Text: GaLiGrü 💗

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short generic positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple appreciation/affection (emoji + short text) — lightweight engagement to signal support or be noticed by the influencer." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('GaLiGrü 💗') is available. It is a generic positive engagement (heart emoji + brief text) and could be either a genuine follower expressing support or a low-effort scripted/bot comment; there is insufficient context (no commenter profile, timing, or other comments) to reliably classify authenticity. Given the ambiguity, fakeness risk is moderate but assessed with low confidence. For advertising decisions, this single comment provides very weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. I recommend collecting more comments and commenter metadata (profile age/followers, comment diversity, repeat commenters, timestamps) and calculating overall engagement rates before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction and generate lightweight engagement; low informational or promotional value. Could be a genuine quick reaction from a follower or generic bot/spam comment used to inflate engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided is a string of laughing emojis (😂 x9). Emoji-only reactions indicate positive sentiment but carry little substantive endorsement and are commonly used both by real followers and by low-effort bot/comment farms. Given only one comment to analyze, the sample is far too small to draw firm conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. I rate the fakeness at a moderate level (40/100) because emoji comments are a frequent genuine behavior but are also easily automated; confidence is limited (35/100) due to the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility I give a cautious, borderline score (45/100) with low confidence (30/100) — the presence of short emoji comments reduces the strength of social proof compared with meaningful comments, but a single emoji does not prove manipulation. Recommended next steps: collect a larger, time-bounded sample of comments; examine commenter profiles for account age, follower/following ratios and posting history; check for repeated identical comments across posts, comment timing bursts, and the post’s like-to-comment ratio to better assess authenticity and influencer suitability for ads." }

Text: Überzeugt😜

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "express approval/enthusiasm (generic praise; signals support but no product detail or intent to purchase)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment ('Überzeugt😜') was provided. It is a brief, generic positive reaction with an emoji and no product-specific language, no question, no tagging, and no purchasing intent. Such comments often come from genuine followers expressing quick approval or from low-effort engagement (fans or casual viewers); they are also commonly mimicked by bots or paid-comment services because of their generic form. Given the single data point, the fakeness estimate is low-to-moderate (30/100) but with limited confidence. For advertising-buy decisions this single comment is a weak signal — it neither demonstrates meaningful audience interest nor credible conversion intent. I recommend a deeper comment sample analysis (volume, diversity, recurring accounts, organic conversation depth), engagement rate vs. follower count, timing patterns, and follower authenticity checks before making a purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / short enthusiastic reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and social approval (fan/follower engagement). Signals positive sentiment toward the account/team, increasing perceived popularity but provides little informational value for advertisers." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment is short, emoji-heavy and highly positive: \"😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 das BESTE Team aller Zeiten ❤️❤️❤️❤️\" (German: \"the BEST team of all time\"). Signals: enthusiastic follower or fan, informal tone, emphasis with all caps and many emojis. Authenticity: likely genuine fan engagement but could also be low-effort or coordinated (bots or close-network supporters) — the style is common for both organic fans and simple engagement-farming accounts. Because there is only one comment provided, confidence in authenticity and overall assessment is limited. For advertising decisions this single comment indicates positive sentiment but provides almost no actionable insight about audience quality, purchase intent, or diversity of engagement. Recommended next steps: analyze commenter profile (age, follower count, posting history), check comment diversity across the post (number of unique commenters, repeated phrases/emojis), time pattern of comments, likes on the comment, and compare across multiple posts to detect patterns of genuine community vs. inauthentic engagement." }

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": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal anecdote / humorous expression of interest", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses genuine interest in joining/applying to the account (recruitment/affiliation), uses humor and emoji to build rapport — indicates real-user engagement rather than generic praise or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The comment (in German) reads like a first-person, context-specific, jocular remark about switching careers to become an MFA in order to apply to the account. Its specificity, personal framing and emoji make it likely genuine (low fakeness). As a single data point this is a positive signal of authentic, relevant engagement (followers who identify with the account and are motivated to interact). However, one comment is an extremely small sample size and cannot establish overall comment authenticity or audience quality for advertising. Before using this as a basis for buying ads, analyze a larger comment sample, inspect commenter profiles (real avatars, bios, posting history, follower counts), check timing patterns and like-to-comment ratios, and look for repeated/generic comments indicating purchased engagement. Based on this single comment the post shows promising qualitative engagement but more data is required for a high-confidence ad purchase decision." }

Text: LG hat mich gekillt 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive reaction (organic)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/strong positive emotional reaction, signals engagement and enjoyment of the content" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"LG hat mich gekillt 😂😂😂😂\" is colloquial German meaning roughly \"LG killed me\" (i.e., made me laugh a lot). It reads like an authentic, informal reaction: uses slang and multiple emojis, which are common in genuine responses. With only one comment provided, there is very limited evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Low fakeness score reflects the natural phrasing and emoji use, but confidence is only moderate because a single example could still come from an engagement pod or orchestrated campaign. For advertising feasibility: this comment is a positive signal that the post elicits an emotional reaction, but it is insufficient on its own to conclude the influencer has real, monetizable engagement. Recommend obtaining: a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, account age, activity), like-to-follower ratio, comment diversity (questions, detailed responses), and temporal patterns. If broader data shows similarly organic, diverse and topical comments, the influencer would be more suitable for ads; if most comments are one-liners, repetitive, or from low-quality accounts, risk of fake engagement is higher." }

Text: Ihr habt eine DM ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Notification / prompt", "count": 1, "purpose": "Alert the poster that they have a direct message (engagement/attention-getting), includes an emoji to signal friendliness." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Ihr habt eine DM ❤️\" is short, natural in tone and contextually appropriate (a follower or partner telling the account to check their DMs). This type of comment is commonly genuine and used to draw the creator's attention to a private message or partnership inquiry. With only one comment available, there is insufficient data to make strong claims about overall comment authenticity or community engagement quality. The low fakeness score reflects that this specific comment appears authentic, but the low-to-moderate overall score reflects that a single, generic comment does not demonstrate reliable, diversified engagement for ad-purchase decisions. Recommended next steps before buying advertising: analyze a larger sample of recent posts and comments, check commenter account quality (profiles, activity, follower ratios), review timing and diversity of comments, and compare comment-to-like ratios to expected benchmarks." }

Text: Warum nur bin ich keine MFA🤷🏼‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/emotional engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses envy/aspiration and personal identification with the topic (relatable reaction to the influencer's content)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment — \"Warum nur bin ich keine MFA🤷🏼‍♀️\" (\"Why am I not an MFA?\") — reads as a genuine, context-specific reaction: a follower expressing envy or wishing they had the profession/role referenced in the post. It contains a natural phrasing and an emoji, which are typical of authentic human responses. As a standalone data point this suggests the content resonates emotionally with at least some of the influencer's audience and may indicate alignment with followers in or interested in the medical/healthcare field. However, one comment is an extremely small sample; it cannot reliably indicate overall audience quality, engagement authenticity, or suitability for advertising. Recommended next steps before a purchase decision: review volume and variety of comments, like-to-comment ratios, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. bots), follower growth patterns, and past ad performance. Based on this single comment, engagement appears real and relevant, but the confidence in using this alone to judge ad feasibility is low." }

Text: Der Obstkorb überzeugt immer ☝️😂🫡

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive endorsement (short with emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise/appreciation for the product (social proof), casual engagement to support the post." } ], "interpretation": "Single visible comment: German \"Der Obstkorb überzeugt immer ☝️😂🫡\" (\"The fruit basket always convinces\") is a brief, positive endorsement with casual emojis. No obvious bot markers (no links, no repetitive patterns, natural language). Given only one comment, fakeness risk is low but overall confidence is limited by sample size. For advertising decisions this comment is mildly supportive signal of product appeal, but you should inspect a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower count, activity), engagement rate, and comment diversity to determine genuine audience interest and reduce risk of fake engagement." }

Text: 🤣🤣 Meritas Blick🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Reaction / Personal reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement (laughing emojis) and reference to a named person/feature ('Meritas Blick'), showing familiarity or an inside-joke style comment; contributes lightweight engagement but not promotional value." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('🤣🤣 Meritas Blick🤣') is a brief, informal reaction expressing amusement and likely referring to a person or characteristic in the post. This indicates at least one engaged follower who recognizes or jokes about the content, which is a positive signal for authenticity but provides very little evidence of meaningful audience interest for advertising (no product mention, no call-to-action, no substantive endorsement). The comment appears genuine (emoji use + personalized text) rather than botlike or templated; fakeness risk is low but confidence is moderate because the sample size is one. Overall, based on this single comment the engagement quality is shallow — insufficient to base an advertising buy. Recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, comment timestamps, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity), like counts, and comment repetition patterns before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (👏👏👏)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive reaction / light engagement to show approval or encouragement; provides social proof but no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a non-verbal, emoji-only applause which signals positive sentiment but carries very little informational value. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers offering quick encouragement and also common in low-effort or automated accounts; without additional context (other comments, timing, commenter profile, repetition across posts) it is not strong evidence of authentic, engaged audience. Given only this one short comment, the assessed fakeness is moderate (40/100) with moderate confidence; the overall assessment for advertising feasibility is neutral (50/100) with limited confidence. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter account quality (follower count, activity, profile completeness), comment diversity, reply threads, and engagement rate relative to follower size before making ad-buy decisions." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 0, "fakeness_confidence": 0, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 0, "comment_types": [], "interpretation": "No comments were provided for analysis. Please supply the comment text(s) or a screenshot/export of the post comments so I can identify comment types and purposes, estimate fakeness, and give an overall assessment for influencer advertising feasibility." }

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": "Medical misinformation / personal medical opinion", "count": 1, "purpose": "State and promote incorrect health claims (discouraging sunscreen, linking vitamin D deficiency to causing skin cancer), persuade others and justify behavior; also general engagement/opinion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (in German) makes several inaccurate or misleading medical claims: it asserts that vitamin D is required to prevent cancer and that skin cancer results from vitamin D deficiency, and it portrays sunscreens as broadly opposed by doctors. These are misleading: while vitamin D has health roles, the commenter’s causal claim about vitamin D deficiency directly causing skin cancer is not supported by consensus evidence, and sunscreen use is generally recommended to reduce skin cancer risk. Fakeness is high (≈85) with good confidence because claims contradict mainstream medical guidance. For influencer advertising decisions: this single comment signals potential risk if the brand is health- or sunscreen-related (could indicate an audience that engages with or promotes health misinformation). However, this is only one comment — sample size is too small to generalize about the account’s audience. Recommended next steps before buying ads: review a larger sample of comments for theme prevalence, check commenter accounts for coordinated/inauthentic behavior, assess overall engagement quality and follower authenticity, and decide brand safety thresholds (if many similar comments appear, consider avoiding health-related or sunscreen products)." }

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": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "advice/suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Offer a practical seating suggestion (sit in the aisle) for the poster's comfort and consideration of others; mild corrective/constructive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a context-specific, constructive suggestion in German: it politely tells the poster they could sit in the aisle, both for their own benefit and for others who like to look out the window. Tone is neutral-to-helpful with a slight corrective edge; content is specific and conversational rather than generic praise or promotional. That makes it likely genuine (low fakeness score). However, with only one comment evaluated, sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the influencer's overall comment quality or community authenticity. For ad-buy decisions this single comment signals the presence of at least some real, attentive followers, but it does not demonstrate broad, engaged, or promotional-ready audience activity. Recommend analyzing a larger set of recent comments, comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratio, follower quality, and presence of repetitive/generic comments before making a purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Product inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Genuine audience information-seeking about product performance (asks whether sunscreen is sufficient for an 8-hour flight)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a specific, on-topic question in German asking about product effectiveness for an 8-hour flight. Its specificity and conversational phrasing suggest it is likely a real user inquiry (low fakeness). However, this is only one data point: you cannot reliably judge overall audience authenticity or engagement quality from a single comment. For advertising feasibility this comment is a positive signal (shows real interest and opportunity for brand engagement), but you need more data — number and variety of comments, like-to-comment ratio, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created), timing patterns, and presence of repetitive/generic comments — before making a purchase decision. Recommended next steps: collect a larger comment sample, inspect top commenters' profiles for authenticity, check reply rates from the influencer, and compare comments against follower count and engagement benchmarks." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "informational/suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a practical detail or solution related to the post (mentions protective films in the cockpit); aims to inform/advise rather than to promote or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a hedged, topic-relevant observation in German ('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'). It reads as a genuine, conversational contribution: not promotional, not templated, and contains language markers ('wohl') that suggest uncertainty typical of real users. With only one comment available, there is insufficient data to judge overall audience quality or engagement patterns. For influencer advertising decisions this comment indicates at least one real, engaged reader, but the very low volume and lack of diverse interactions (likes, replies, multiple distinct commenters) make the sample too small to consider the post’s comments a reliable signal of authentic, high-value engagement. Recommend reviewing a larger set of posts/comments, reply rates, commenter follower profiles, and recurrence of similar comments before deciding on ad spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Organic engagement / personal opinion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Acknowledges useful information, states a personal preference (will keep window open), and gives a positive remark about the view — signals genuine follower reaction and light engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "Der Kommentar 'Gute Info, aber ich lasse das Fenster trotzdem oben. Liebe die Aussicht' wirkt echt und plausibel. Er kombiniert eine Anerkennung des Inhalts mit einer persönlichen Präferenz und einer positiven Bemerkung, ohne Standard-Emoji- oder Werbetext-Muster, die typisch für Bots oder Fake-Kommentare sind. Als Einzelkommentar ist er ein positives Signal für authentisches Engagement, aber nicht ausreichend, um die Glaubwürdigkeit der gesamten Community zu beurteilen. Für Werbeentscheidungen empfehle ich, zusätzliche Daten zu prüfen: Anzahl und Vielfalt der Kommentare, Like-zu-Follower-Verhältnis, Timing der Interaktionen und Profile der Kommentierenden. Auf Basis dieses Kommentars allein: niedrige Wahrscheinlichkeit von Fälschung (gute Authentizität), moderat positives Zeichen für Influencer-Eignung, aber weitere Analyse erforderlich." }

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": 65, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Technical question / informed inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask for clarification about material properties and UV protection (seek information, show subject-matter interest, engage with poster)" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment is a technical, knowledgeable question in German about UV absorption of acrylic aircraft windows (mentions nm values and partial protection). Language, detail and phrasing suggest a genuine human with some domain knowledge rather than a short generic bot reply. Fakeness is low (score 10) but confidence is limited because there is only one comment to evaluate. From an advertising-feasibility perspective: quality of engagement is good — thoughtful, relevant, and indicates real interest — but volume is extremely low (only one meaningful comment), so social proof and audience breadth are insufficient on their own to justify a purchase decision. Recommendation: review more posts for consistent patterns of informed engagement, reply to this commenter to encourage further interaction, and check follower authenticity metrics before committing to advertising." }

Text: Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical / Sarcastic comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express skepticism or mock a marketing term ('well aging'); indicates negative sentiment toward phrasing or positioning rather than promoting or engaging with the product. Likely authentic user reaction (not a bot, not promotional)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘' is a short, critical reaction to the use of the English marketing phrase 'well aging' (likely viewed as jargon or an anglicism). This suggests the commenter is skeptical or mildly mocking the messaging. It reads as genuine, low-effort organic engagement rather than spam, influencer-driven praise, or bot activity. For advertising feasibility: a solitary negative/skeptical comment is not decisive, but it flags potential audience sensitivity to marketing language and authenticity — particularly for products related to aging/beauty. Because the sample size is one comment, conclusions are tentative; you should review a larger set of comments and engagement patterns (likes, replies, sentiment distribution, follower quality) before deciding on ad spend. Recommendations: collect more comments, check for repeated patterns of skepticism or negative sentiment, and evaluate overall follower engagement and authenticity before purchase." }

Text: Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine question / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "asks for clarification/suggests an alternative (practical question about booking an aisle seat); indicates topical engagement rather than generic praise or promotion" } ], "interpretation": "Based on the single comment provided — \"Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?\" (\"But why not book an aisle seat then?\") — this appears to be a real, context-specific question from a user rather than a spammy or promotional message. It shows topical engagement (seeking clarification or offering a practical alternative) and lacks common markers of fake comments (generic compliments, repeated emojis, unrelated links, or bot-like phrasing). Given only one comment, the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall authenticity of the account's comment section. For advertising feasibility: the comment quality is positive (real engagement), but quantity is extremely limited — you need larger samples (many comments, likes, replies), audience demographics, and engagement rates over time to make a reliable buy decision. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments, comment-to-follower ratio, comment timestamps (to detect inorganic bursts), and look for patterns of generic comments or repeated phrasing that indicate inauthentic engagement." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Confused / Questioning (organic)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks clarification or questions relevance/connection between elements of the post; signals genuine viewer reaction to content mismatch." }, { "type": "Humorous reaction / Emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Light, amused response (laughing emoji) to show engagement and tone; low investment interaction rather than a promotional or transactional comment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is short, colloquial German with an emoji and reads as a genuine, real-user reaction expressing confusion and amusement ('What does one have to do with the other, huh?😂'). It does not resemble typical bot patterns (no generic praise, no marketing links, natural phrasing and punctuation). However, it supplies little commercial signal — no intent to purchase, no product-specific feedback, no influencer praise. Because only one comment is available, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising feasibility this comment indicates some real engagement but not audience intent or positive brand alignment. I recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, commenter histories (recurrence, follower counts), overall engagement rate, and sentiment distribution before making a buying decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive reaction to the post (complementary tone, admiration)." }, { "type": "engagement/question/rhetorical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Rhetorical or playful question to engage with the content and author (provokes a response or interaction)." }, { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Uses heart-eyes emojis to amplify positive sentiment and emotional reaction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“Oha ich werd braun wenn ich fliege???😍😍”) reads as a natural, informal German-speaking reaction: a playful, positive remark (slight envy or joking about tanning when flying) plus enthusiastic emojis. Linguistic cues (colloquial phrasing, punctuation, emoji use) point toward a genuine human commenter rather than a bot or generic paid comment. Fakeness is therefore low (around 10) but based on only one short comment, confidence cannot be maximal. For advertising feasibility this single comment provides limited evidence of meaningful, authentic audience engagement. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, overall engagement rate, follower quality, timing patterns, and diversity of commenters before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 20, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only / reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive reaction; low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction (social proof) but conveys no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it is a single laughing emoji (😂). Emoji-only comments are common from real followers as a simple reaction, but they are also frequently used in low-effort or automated engagement. With this single data point, there is insufficient evidence to judge the authenticity of the commenter or the overall engagement quality. The relatively low fakeness score reflects that a lone emoji is more likely genuine than a clearly bot-like phrase, but confidence is low because the sample is minimal. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment alone is weak signal — it suggests some lightweight audience engagement but provides no insight into audience relevance, purchase intent, or community quality. Recommended next steps: examine a larger sample of comments, timestamps, commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratio, repeated/generic comments across posts, and audience demographics before making an ad buy 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": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Opinion / Personal preference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal dislike for windowless flights and highlights what the commenter values (the view)." }, { "type": "Critical / Pushback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Criticizes the subject's behavior or stance (hopes they won't impose it on their children; annoyed by risk-averse attitude)." }, { "type": "Argumentative / Normative", "count": 1, "purpose": "Makes a broader normative claim about risk in life ('life is a risk' / 'live and let live') to defend the criticized behavior." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as authentic: it's relatively long, specific, coherent, uses a natural emoji and personal references, and offers a reasoned critique rather than generic praise. Tone is mildly negative/critical rather than hostile. That suggests an engaged, opinionated follower rather than a bot or paid promotional comment. For influencer ad feasibility this is generally positive: engagement is real, but the sentiment shows the influencer can provoke disagreement and has viewers who will publicly challenge content—brands should consider whether occasional critical public responses fit their campaign risk tolerance. Caveat: this analysis is based on one comment only; a reliable advertising decision requires a larger sample of comments (volume, sentiment distribution, repetition patterns) and other signals (follower growth, like-to-comment ratio, audience demographics)." }

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": 65, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "advice / safety", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide practical, context-specific advice (reminder to leave window shade open and use sunscreen); indicates genuine engagement rather than generic or promotional comment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a context-specific, practical remark in German about leaving a window shade open and using sunscreen against UV — language and content appear natural and situation-aware, not templated or promotional. That suggests it is likely from a real follower reacting to the post content (e.g., a photo or video involving windows/sunlight). Fakeness score is low (10) with moderate confidence because the comment's phrasing and relevance look organic, but evaluation is limited by extremely small sample size (only one comment).\n\nOverall ad-feasibility score is moderate (60) with moderate-low confidence: a genuine, engaged commenter is a positive signal for influencer authenticity, but one comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality, engagement rate, sentiment distribution, bot presence, or conversion potential. To improve assessment, request a larger sample of comments, overall engagement metrics (likes, saves, viewer demographics), follower growth history, and examples of past sponsored-post performance." }

Text: Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "opinion/engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express a personal preference/interest and lightly engage with the poster (friendly banter). Uses emojis to convey tone; functions as organic audience signal rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, in German, reads \"Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁\" (\"Internal medicine is much more interesting\"). It appears genuine: short, conversational, uses emojis and expresses a personal opinion rather than promotional language or generic praise. There are no clear bot/spam markers (no links, repeated phrases, or account-tagging). Because only one comment is present, overall comment volume and diversity are very low, which weakens evidence of high audience engagement. For advertising feasibility: the comment quality suggests an authentic, niche audience (medical interest), but the very low comment count indicates limited visible engagement on this post. Recommendation: supplement this comment-level analysis with follower metrics (follower count, likes, save/share rates), comment-to-follower ratio across multiple posts, and account history before deciding on ad spend. Given the tiny sample, the assessment is tentative." }

Text: Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 48, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous reaction / organic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and relatability (laughing at the post, referencing the hospitality 'Gastro' sector); signals a follower reacting emotionally rather than promoting or spamming." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂') reads as an authentic, spontaneous humorous reaction from a user likely familiar with the hospitality context referenced. It contains no promotional language, no generic influencer-promotion phrases, and uses natural colloquial German with emojis—features that typically indicate human authorship. However, this is only one data point: while the comment itself likely isn't fake (low fakeness score), it provides weak evidence about the overall authenticity or commercial suitability of the influencer's audience. For an advertising purchase decision you should evaluate more signals: commenter account age/activity, diversity and rate of comments, timing patterns, repeated identical comments across posts, like-to-comment ratios, audience demographics and any sudden spikes in engagement. Based on this single comment, the engagement appears genuine but insufficient to confidently recommend or reject an advertising buy (overall score in the mid-range)." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter; lightweight engagement and social proof rather than substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment containing only multiple 'face with tears of joy' emojis. This is a low-information reaction: it signals engagement and that the post elicited amusement, but gives no detail about purchase intent, audience quality, or genuine endorsement. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also frequently posted by bots or low-effort accounts, so authenticity is ambiguous. Given the single short reaction, I cannot reliably judge the comments' overall authenticity or the influencer's suitability for advertising. For an ad-purchase decision you should request a larger set of comments and examine commenter profiles (account age, follower/following ratio, post history), look for conversational comments and diversity of responses, check timing patterns (comment bursts), and compute engagement rate and comment-to-like ratio. Based solely on this comment, the signal for advertising value is weak and inconclusive." }

Text: Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive reaction / entertainment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and social approval; low-effort engagement (emoji + short text) likely intended to signal enjoyment and connect with the poster." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂') is a brief, positive reaction showing amusement. This is typical of genuine, low-effort engagement but provides little actionable signal about audience quality, purchase intent, or relevance for advertising. Fakeness likelihood is low–moderate (around 20%) because the comment matches normal human behavior (language, context, emojis) but cannot be confidently verified from one example. Overall suitability for advertising cannot be judged from one short comment; I rate overall at 45/100 with low confidence. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments (volume, diversity, account profiles, timing, repeated phrases), check commenter account authenticity (profile age, follower/following ratio, content), and examine likes/replies patterns before making an ad buy decision." }

Text: Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive/emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation or positive reaction (simple praise), possibly topical reference to 'Geburtshilfe' (obstetrics). Could be genuine follower engagement or low-effort/automated engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍' is a very short, positive reaction in German. It reads as either a genuine, low-effort praise from a follower interested in obstetrics-related content or a generic emoji-driven engagement comment. With only one comment available there is insufficient signal to assess overall comment authenticity or audience quality reliably. The modest fakeness score reflects the possibility that short emoji comments can be produced by bots or engagement farms, but equally by real users. For ad-buy decisions, this single datum is weak: it does not demonstrate an engaged, brand-relevant audience. Recommend gathering more data (full comment sample across multiple posts, commenter account checks — profile age, follower/following ratio, avatar and post history, repeated identical comments, timing patterns, language consistency, overall engagement rate) before making an advertising purchase." }

Text: Chirurgie ♥️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word + emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "short engagement — could be a quick positive reaction, fan comment, or an attention-getting keyword (ambiguous)" }, { "type": "potential promotional/keyword", "count": 1, "purpose": "mentions 'Chirurgie' (surgery) — could be promotion for medical/cosmetic services or a topical tag; could also be unrelated shorthand" }, { "type": "foreign-language", "count": 1, "purpose": "non-English word — may indicate international audience or copied template used by commenters/bots" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('Chirurgie ♥️') is available, so conclusions are limited. The comment is short and ambiguous: it might be a genuine brief positive reaction, a topical/keyword mention (possibly promoting surgical services), or a templated bot comment. Because there is only one ambiguous item, fakeness risk is moderate but uncertain. For ad-buy decisions, this single comment does not demonstrate healthy, organic, diverse engagement. Recommend reviewing a larger sample of recent comments, commenter account quality (followers, activity, profile content), comment timing/patterns, and overall engagement rate (likes vs. comments) before concluding. Based on current evidence, I would rate the comment section as low-value for reliable organic engagement (overall score 30/100) with low-to-moderate confidence." }

Text: Dermatologie?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "User asking for clarification whether the post/content relates to dermatology — informational engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Dermatologie?') is a short, topical question in German and most likely represents genuine curiosity or a request for clarification rather than a spammy or bot-like message. Fakeness is low (estimated 10/100) with moderate-to-high confidence because the comment has coherent intent and language. However, this is only one comment — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising feasibility: current comment data is insufficient to recommend a purchase; the single authentic-seeming query is a neutral sign (shows at least minimal organic engagement) but does not demonstrate sustained, diverse, or enthusiastic audience interaction. Recommend obtaining more data before deciding: total number of comments, likes, follower count and growth patterns, comment diversity (questions, praise, critique), commenter profiles (real accounts vs. new/empty profiles), timestamps, and ratios (comments per follower). Additional checks: look for repetitive/generic comments, identical phrasing, and comment-to-like consistency to better assess fakeness and ad suitability." }

Text: @corinnafeldmeier 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag with emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging another user to draw their attention or share the post; reaction (amusement) signaled by emoji. Increases visibility via mention but provides no substantive feedback about the post or product." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a tag of a specific user (@corinnafeldmeier) accompanied by a laughing emoji. This is a low-effort engagement type common among genuine followers tagging friends or co-viewers, and also used in engagement pods to boost apparent activity. Because there is only one short comment, there is insufficient data to strongly assess authenticity or audience quality. The comment shows social interaction but no substantive endorsement, question, or product-related discussion. For advertising decisions this single comment is weak evidence: it neither supports strong organic interest nor conclusively indicates inauthentic engagement. Recommendation: review a larger sample of recent posts, look at comment diversity and depth, overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), and perform a follower authenticity audit before purchasing advertising or partnerships." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement / positive reaction; low-information engagement that signals attention but offers no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (two laughing emojis) is a low-effort, positive reaction. It likely comes from a genuine user expressing amusement, but it provides no qualitative signal about audience interest in products or purchase intent. As a data point for advertising feasibility it is weak — emoji comments increase apparent engagement but are poor indicators of conversion potential or authentic community interest. Confidence in the fakeness assessment is moderate-high because emoji-only comments are common from real users, but the sample is too small to generalize. Recommendation: evaluate a larger sample of comments (look for substantive praise/questions, recurring accounts, timing patterns, follower-account audits, and like-to-comment ratios) before making an advertising decision." }

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": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/relatable", "count": 1, "purpose": "Compliment and personal identification with the subject; expresses admiration and a personal reason for engagement (career-related relatability), likely intended to show support and connection." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is in natural German, specific (mentions career choice) and uses an emoji to convey tone, which points toward a genuine, engaged user rather than a generic bot reply. Purpose is supportive and relatable, which can strengthen perceived credibility for an influencer. However, with only one comment available we cannot assess broader audience quality, volume, or patterns (e.g., repeated generic praise, timing, or suspicious accounts). For advertising feasibility this single positive, seemingly authentic comment is a small positive signal but insufficient on its own — recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (followers, activity), like-to-comment ratios, and temporal distribution before making a purchase decision." }

Text: HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "playful/reaction (inside-joke)", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/engagement; likely referencing a person or event ('HNO came too late') rather than promoting, soliciting, or spamming" } ], "interpretation": "The single provided comment ('HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣') reads as human-written: short, context-specific, with emoji and informal phrasing—most consistent with a playful or inside-joke reaction. It does not show hallmarks of bot/spam (repetitive phrasing, links, generic compliments). However, assessment is highly limited by sample size (one comment). While this comment suggests low likelihood of fakery, it is insufficient to conclude overall audience authenticity or influencer suitability for advertising. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze full comment set for volume and diversity, engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), time patterns, repeated messages (copy-paste), follower quality (accounts vs. bots), and presence of promotional/affiliate comment patterns. Current signal: low fakeness but insufficient evidence to give a strong yes for ad spend—treat as moderate risk." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Humorous reaction / emoji-heavy", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and engagement with the post (social signal), likely informal/friendly rather than promotional." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an organic-seeming, emoji-heavy humorous reaction in German (“Die Fürze bei der Gastro killen mich” + laughing emojis). It reads like a genuine, spontaneous audience reaction (light-hearted amusement/inside joke) rather than bot/spam or a promotional/affiliate message. Because there is only one comment provided, overall signal about audience quality, authenticity, and ad-fit is weak. Low fakeness score reflects the natural language and contextual emojis; however, one comment is insufficient to judge typical engagement quality or fraud. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments, like/comment ratios, follower demographics, and engagement over multiple posts before making an advertising purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal/relatable concern (humorous)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal apprehension about an ophthalmic procedure (DMEK) in a light-hearted way to engage and relate to the post; not promotional." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is likely authentic and comes from a real user reacting personally to medical content (mentions DMEK and gas release). It reads as a humorous/relatable objection rather than a bot or promotional message. As a data point for advertising feasibility: it indicates the audience may include people with real medical experience or concerns and that comments can be candid and specific — a positive sign for genuine engagement. However, this is only one comment; the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall comment quality or audience authenticity. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments for patterns (repetitive wording, short generic praise, timing, commenter profiles) before deciding on ad purchase." }

Text: Gute Wahl

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic_positive_short_comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "brief endorsement / social validation (compliment)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Gute Wahl' (German for 'Good choice'). This is a very short, generic positive remark. Such comments can be genuine (a follower quickly approving the post) but are also commonly used by engagement bots or low-effort commenters. Given the minimal data, the fakeness assessment is moderately uncertain (score 45, confidence 40). For advertising feasibility the available comment evidence is weak: there is low comment depth and no conversational signals or detailed feedback, which lowers the quality signal for authentic audience engagement (overall score 30, confidence 50). Recommendation: before purchasing ads, request more data — full recent comment samples, commenter account checks (profiles, activity, follower counts), overall engagement rate (likes vs followers), audience demographics, and timestamp patterns — to better determine audience authenticity and ad value." }

Text: Yeah Fließbandarbeit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical/negative organic comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses critique or dissatisfaction (labels content as 'assembly-line work' — implies repetitive or low-effort content), likely intended as a genuine reaction rather than promotional or bot activity." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Yeah Fließbandarbeit' (mix of English/German meaning roughly 'Yeah, assembly-line work'). The message is negative/critical, suggesting the commenter perceives the content as repetitive or low-effort. Linguistic features (mixed-language phrasing, context-specific critique) point toward a real human reaction rather than a generic spam/bot message, hence a low fakeness score (10). However, the sample size is extremely small (one comment), which lowers confidence in any broader conclusion. For advertising feasibility: this single negative comment indicates weak comment-side social proof and potential audience skepticism; combined with lack of additional comments or engagement signals, it makes the post less attractive for ad placement. Overall recommendation: require more data (number and variety of comments, likes, follower quality, recent engagement trends) before deciding to purchase advertising. Current limited evidence yields a low-to-moderate suitability score of 30 (confidence 60)." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal agreement / anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show solidarity with the poster and share a personal action (declined); signals genuine user reaction" }, { "type": "Humor / sarcasm", "count": 1, "purpose": "Use of laughing emojis and a joking comparison (»Funktionsoberarzt«) to entertain and build community tone" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment appears organic and human: colloquial German, a specific occupational term, and emojis indicate genuine engagement rather than bot/spam. The commenter states they 'also declined' (agreement with poster) and jokes about a worse alternative, which suggests familiarity with the subject and a light, community-building tone. As part of an influencer-ad feasibility check: this single data point is positive for authenticity but is very limited sample size. It indicates the audience includes German-speaking users who respond with personal, topical remarks rather than generic praise or promotional language. Recommendation: gather a larger sample of comments, examine commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), check like-to-comment ratios and comment timestamps to confirm consistent organic engagement before buying ads or partnerships. Based on this single comment, the risk of widespread fake commenting is low, but overall confidence in ad-feasibility is moderate because more data is needed." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Conversational question (engagement) with humor", "count": 1, "purpose": "To engage the poster with a lighthearted question about household chore division, provoke a reply/discussion and signal genuine follower curiosity; also functions as mild teasing/humor to build rapport." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears organic and written in a natural, conversational tone — a follower asking who performs routine household tasks (vacuuming, mopping, cleaning the toilet), with a laughing emoji that indicates playful intent. This is typical of genuine audience engagement rather than bot-like or promotional activity. Fakeness is low (≈10) with fairly high confidence because the content is specific, context-related and uses natural language and emoji.\n\nHowever, this assessment is based on one comment only; the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or community engagement quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single comment is a positive signal (real engagement, potential rapport), but you should evaluate additional metrics: comment volume relative to follower count, variety of commenters, reply rate from the influencer, timing patterns, presence of generic/promo comments, and likes on comments. If multiple comments show similar specificity and conversational tone, confidence in authenticity and suitability for ads increases. Based on the available data, the post shows modestly favorable engagement but more evidence is required before committing to advertising spend." }

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": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Critical comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seek clarification and challenge the post's implied claim; share professional experience to contest a stated or implied assertion about working hours." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is specific, detailed and written in natural language by someone claiming medical-professional experience (neurosurgery, percentages of position, weekly hours). It functions as a critical engagement rather than praise or promotion, asking how the influencer's claim (presumably about low working hours as a senior physician) is possible. The specificity and tone make it unlikely to be a bot or typical fake engagement (fakeness low). Because the sample is one comment only, conclusions about the overall comment field are limited. For advertising decisions: the audience includes professionals or at least sophisticated readers who will fact-check professional claims—this increases reputational risk for advertisers if the influencer makes verifiable professional claims that can be contested. If the influencer's content is accurate and their audience includes relevant professionals, targeted ads (medical, career, work-life) could perform well; but advertisers should verify influencer accuracy and audience composition before purchase." }

Text: Top!👍🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive / short praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show approval/positive reaction (engagement signal) but provides no detail. Such short, non-specific comments commonly come from casual followers, engagement pods, or low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Top!👍🏼'. It is a short, generic positive message with an emoji. This yields low informational value about audience quality or genuine interest in content/products. Short, non-specific praise is commonly used both by real casual followers and by scripts/engagement farms to inflate visible engagement; with just one example we cannot confidently label it authentic. Fakeness is assessed as more likely than not (60) but with limited confidence (40) because of the very small sample. For advertising purchase feasibility the evidence is weak: the overall score is low (30) because there is minimal meaningful commentary to demonstrate an engaged, targeted audience that would convert for ads. Recommendation: request a larger sample of recent comments, inspect commenter profiles for follower counts/activity, look for repetitive phrasing across comments, check comment timing patterns, and calculate true engagement rate (likes, saves, story interactions) before deciding to buy advertising or sponsor content." }

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": 70, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine professional inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about career transition (ophthalmology → aesthetic medicine), express professional interest and curiosity; engagement to build rapport and learn background." } ], "interpretation": "The comment reads like a real, specific, domain-relevant question from a medical professional (mentions 'Internistin' and two medical specialties). It is neither generic praise nor a short bot-like phrase and contains personalized context and an emoji used in a natural way — all indicators of authenticity. As a single data point this is a positive signal: it suggests the influencer attracts niche, professional-interest engagement, which is valuable for advertising in medical, aesthetic or healthcare-adjacent categories. However, the sample is extremely small — you should verify commenter profiles (real account, follower overlap, activity), overall comment volume and diversity, engagement rate, and look for patterns of generic or repetitive comments across posts before making a buying decision. Given the limited evidence, the assessment is cautiously optimistic but not definitive." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "sarcastic / critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "express displeasure or skepticism about the subject (mentions an 'affair'), likely meant to criticize or mock; engages emotionally but not promotional or bot-like" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Und jeder kriegt sogar noch ne Affäre unter, perfekt 😶‍🌫️') is sarcastic and critical, implying frustration or mockery about perceived scandal/infidelity related to the post or people referenced. Linguistic cues (natural phrasing, emoji, context-specific sarcasm) point to a genuine human commenter rather than a bot or promotional account — hence a low fakeness score. For influencer-advertising decisions this comment is a small warning flag: it suggests there may be controversy or negative sentiment among at least some followers, which can pose brand-safety risk. However, one comment is insufficient to draw firm conclusions. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for sentiment and recurring themes, check for patterns of controversy or reputation issues, and audit follower authenticity before purchasing ad space." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "supportive/motivational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express encouragement and social approval; generic positive engagement (short motivational message with emojis)." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment in German reads as a generic motivational/supportive message ('Everything is possible...') with three fire emojis. This is typical of genuine encouragement but also a format commonly used by both real followers and low-effort bot accounts. With only one comment and no surrounding context (likes, commenter profile, comment timing, other comments), there is low evidence either way: slight lean toward genuine but insufficient to rule out inorganic engagement. For advertising feasibility this sample is inconclusive — the comment shows positive sentiment but lacks specificity, depth, or clear intent to convert. Recommend reviewing larger sample of comments, commenter accounts, engagement rates, and timing patterns before making ad purchase decisions." }

Text: Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Skeptical / Sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disbelief or ridicule of the post's claim; use humor/emoji to engage and signal group agreement (social proof of skepticism)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂\" is a sarcastic/skeptical reaction implying the commenter thinks the post is naive or unbelievable. The use of colloquial German and a laughing emoji points to a genuine, human response rather than a bot. Fakeness is therefore low (score 10) with moderate-to-high confidence because stylistic cues match organic commentary. For advertising feasibility: one skeptical comment is not decisive. It signals that at least part of the audience may view the content (or claims in it) critically, which could reduce ad effectiveness if the advertised product relies on unquestioning trust. However, a single comment provides very limited evidence; you need a larger sample of comments, engagement rates (likes/comments ratio), sentiment distribution, reply threads, and follower authenticity checks before making a purchase decision. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments, check like-to-follower ratio, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts, and look for patterns of repeated negative or bot-like comments." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal / organic follower comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Conversational engagement: expresses admiration/envy of the creator’s role/position; informal reaction to the post (emoji used). Not promotional, not spam." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment provided: “Zu, da kommst du aber sehr gut weg. Hätte dann auch lieber deinen Part😳” (German). Tone is informal and conversational, likely from a real follower rather than a bot — uses natural phrasing and an emoji, addresses the creator directly and expresses envy/admiration. This indicates some genuine audience engagement but is low in volume and not product-focused or actionable for advertisers. With a single, non-promotional comment it's impossible to judge broader audience authenticity or reach; the available signal suggests authenticity but is sparse. For advertising-buy decisions, this sample is insufficient: positive sign for personal resonance, but you need larger comment volume, diversity, timing, and other engagement metrics (likes, saves, follower growth, commenter profiles) to assess influencer reliability. Recommendations: obtain a larger sample of recent comments, look for recurring commenters, check for generic or copy-paste patterns, and analyze engagement rate and follower quality before purchasing." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic emoji engagement (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive reaction / show support; increases visible engagement but carries little information about user intent or authenticity." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of a heart emoji was provided. This comment type is highly ambiguous: it can be genuine (a follower showing appreciation) but is also commonly generated by bots or mass-engagement services because it requires no context or effort. Given the minimal data (one non-verbal comment), the assessed fakeness is elevated (65) but with low confidence (35) because there is insufficient context to distinguish organic from inorganic behavior. For influencer advertising feasibility the signal here is weak — a lone heart does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, intent to engage with sponsored content, or quality of followers. Overall recommendation: do not base an advertising buy on this single comment. Request more data: a larger sample of recent comments, commenter usernames, follower counts, like-to-comment ratio, comment timestamps, repeated identical comments across posts, and audience demographics. Those will allow a more reliable fakeness and suitability assessment." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question/request for advice", "count": 1, "purpose": "User seeks recommendations about facial pores (skincare); drives engagement and invites replies from influencer or community." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Hat jemand Empfehlungen bzgl. Poren im Gesicht? 🥵') is a direct, topical question in German asking for skincare recommendations. It reads as organic user engagement (genuine interest) rather than a promotional or boilerplate reply. This kind of comment is valuable for an influencer in the beauty/skincare niche because it shows the audience will ask for product/service recommendations — a positive signal for advertisers. However, the analysis is based on a single comment, so statistical reliability is very low. To evaluate advertising feasibility with confidence, examine a larger sample: total comment volume, diversity (questions vs. compliments vs. spam), commenter account authenticity (profile age, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns, replies from the influencer, likes on comments, and presence of repetitive or templated comments indicating bot farms. Preliminary recommendation: the comment is likely genuine and indicates topical relevance, but do not base a purchase decision on this alone — request broader comment data and engagement metrics before committing to advertising spend." }

Text: 😍👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express quick approval/admiration; low-effort engagement that signals positive sentiment but adds no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('😍👏') is a generic positive emoji response. Such comments are common and can come from genuine followers expressing appreciation or from low-effort/bulk engagement (bots or purchased comments). On its own it carries very low informational value about audience quality, intent to buy, or meaningful engagement. Because only one short emoji comment is provided, the fakeness assessment is tentative (moderate probability of being inorganic but low confidence). For an advertising feasibility decision, this comment alone is weak evidence of an engaged, high-quality audience. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments and other signals before deciding: check comment diversity and substance, commenter account quality (age, follower counts, posting history), timing/velocity of comments, like-to-follower ratio, and repeated identical comments across posts. These additional checks will raise confidence in authenticity and suitability for ad spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Negative emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disapproval/shock at the post's content; signals controversy and negative audience sentiment rather than promotion or information." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (‘Ich bin wirklich entsetzt über solche Aussagen…😮😮😮😮😮’) is a short, emotion-driven expression of shock/disgust. It reads as an authentic negative reaction (repeated surprised emojis and direct language) rather than promotional, spammy, or clearly bot-generated content. Fakeness is assessed low (10) with moderate-to-high confidence because the wording and emoji use are consistent with a genuine user reaction, but one short comment is limited evidence. For influencer-advertising feasibility this is a mild warning: the visible engagement here is negative and suggests the post content may be controversial for some viewers. However, this assessment is based on a single comment only — insufficient to conclude overall audience quality, sentiment distribution, or engagement authenticity. Recommend collecting more comments, like/reply ratios, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, prior activity), and look for patterns of repetitive language or accounts to better judge overall comment authenticity and suitability for advertising." }

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": 70, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical/Corrective", "count": 1, "purpose": "Directly challenges the post's claims, corrects perceived misinformation about professional routines and family logistics, and expresses frustration/disbelief." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is a direct, emotionally charged rebuttal from someone claiming domain knowledge (references to 'Oberarzt', working hours, surgical schedules, child care timing). Linguistic features — specific details, full sentences, rhetorical questions, and multiple emotive emoji — point to an organic, human response rather than automated or generic praise. For influencer-advertising consideration: the presence of informed, critical commenters can indicate an engaged and discerning audience (positive for authenticity), but also signals potential controversy or polarizing content that may invite negative discussion around sponsored messaging. With only one comment, conclusions are limited: recommend analyzing a larger sample for sentiment distribution, frequency of similar corrections, commenter profiles (are they professionals or repeat critics), and timing patterns to confirm authenticity before final ad buy decisions." }

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": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "compliment / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment, social proof to the poster (boosts perceived popularity/trust)." }, { "type": "professional endorsement / affinity", "count": 1, "purpose": "Signals niche relevance and credibility by referencing the commenter’s profession and experience with the field." }, { "type": "engagement / relationship building", "count": 1, "purpose": "Builds rapport and potential networking (personal connection rather than promotion)." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as plausibly genuine: it's relatively long, specific (mentions being an anesthesiologist who works with ophthalmologists), references the exact niches (ophthalmology, aesthetics, longevity), and uses natural phrasing and emojis. Those characteristics reduce the likelihood of it being a generic bot/spam message. Fakeness risk is low (estimated ~10/100) but confidence is not perfect because this analysis is based on one comment only. For advertising-feasibility: the comment is a positive signal — it indicates niche-relevant, professional-engaged followers exist — but one authentic comment is insufficient to conclude the audience is broadly engaged or real. Recommendation: gather a larger sample (multiple posts, commenter profile checks, engagement rate, comment diversity, timing patterns) before committing budget. As a quick decision: mildly favorable (overall score 60/100) — proceed with cautious testing (small paid campaign or influencer trial) and deeper audience audits." }

Text: Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "anticipation / positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses interest and anticipation for the post outcome; functions as encouragement and basic engagement rather than promotion, spam, or a question." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌\" (German: \"I'm looking forward to the result\") appears to be genuine, low-effort positive engagement. It signals interest but carries very little informational value about audience quality, purchasing intent, or product sentiment. With only one short comment, the sample size is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about the overall authenticity or commercial value of the influencer's audience. For an advertising purchase decision, this single comment is a weak signal. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments for repetition/generic phrasing, check commenter account maturity (follower counts, posting history, profile pictures), compute engagement rate (likes and comments vs follower count), look for patterns of repeated identical comments (bot signatures), assess timing patterns (bursts), and verify follower-source geography/language alignment with the campaign. Based on the present evidence, I assign a low fakeness likelihood (15) but moderate uncertainty, and a low-to-moderate suitability score (30) with medium confidence—insufficient for a buying decision without broader comment and audience analysis." }

Text: Ja

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short one-word affirmation", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort engagement: a brief agreement/approval ('Ja' = 'Yes' in several languages). Could be a genuine quick reaction, a generic supportive reply from a follower, or a bot/spam account adding apparent engagement. Provides little brand-relevant information or meaningful signal about audience quality." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment: 'Ja'. That comment is ambiguous — it may simply be a one-word positive reply from a real follower (language-specific affirmation) or a low-effort bot/spam message. One-word comments are commonly seen in inorganic engagement patterns, but also occur naturally. Given only one comment, any assessment is highly uncertain. For influencer advertising decisions this single data point is insufficient. Recommended next steps before purchasing: obtain the full comment set for the post, analyze commenter profiles for authenticity (profile age, followers/following ratio, post history), look for repetitive/templated comments or repeated accounts across posts, measure overall engagement rate (likes + comments relative to follower count and views), inspect timestamps for unnatural bursts, and request influencer audience demographics and third-party audit reports. If many comments on the post are similar low-effort replies, treat engagement as suspicious. If comments are diverse, substantive, and come from credible accounts, the audience is more likely real and the influencer more suitable for advertising." }

Text: 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses praise/approval and increases visible engagement; low-effort reaction that can be posted by genuine followers or automated/outsourced accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (six 🙌 emojis) is a generic positive reaction. Emoji-only responses provide weak signal: they do indicate engagement and positive sentiment, but lack personalization, context, or account information that would support authenticity. Such comments are commonly left by real followers as quick praise, but they are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or paid commenters because they are low-effort and boost visible activity. Given only this one example, I rate the probability of fakery as moderate (45) with moderate confidence (55%) due to limited data. For advertising-feasibility decisions this sample is insufficient: overall score 50 reflects neutral/uncertain suitability and overall confidence is low (30%). Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments across several recent posts, check commenter profiles for real account signals (profile photo, post history, follower counts, comment variety), look for repetitive comments or identical emojis/accounts, analyze timing patterns (many comments within seconds/minutes), and compare comment volume to likes and follower count to compute engagement ratios. These checks will materially improve the reliability of the authenticity assessment and ad-buy recommendation." }

Text: Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine fan / previous-customer", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses intent to return, conveys positive sentiment and emotional engagement (social proof)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢\" reads as a personal, emotional statement likely from a real follower or past customer wanting to revisit. It includes natural language and an emoji, which reduces likelihood of being automated or templated. With only one comment provided, however, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall comment authenticity or reach. For advertising decisions this is a mildly positive signal (shows emotional connection and intent), but you should analyze a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), repetition patterns, timestamps, and overall engagement rate before committing to a purchase." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "testimonial / client mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Showcase a result after visiting the tagged account (@liebdeingesicht), provide social proof and endorse the service; also serves as a tag/credit to the provider." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads as a short client testimonial: '1 week after I was with you @liebdeingesicht. ✨🙌' — it includes a specific time reference and tags the provider, with positive emojis. These features make it likely authentic rather than bot-like or generic spam, so fakeness is rated low (20/100) with moderate confidence. However, this is only one comment: the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience quality or authenticity for advertising decisions. For ad-purchase feasibility this comment is mildly positive evidence of genuine client satisfaction and tagging behavior, but you should request broader metrics (number of comments, comment diversity, like-to-follower ratio, recurring commenters, follower quality and demographics, and other testimonials) before committing. Overall suitability for advertising is therefore cautious-to-moderate (55/100) with moderate confidence." }

Text: Lieben wir ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive/emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses simple approval/affection (social endorsement). Increases visible engagement; could be genuine fan reaction or a generic/bot-style comment used to inflate engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: 'Lieben wir ❤️' (We love [it] ❤️). This is a brief, positive endorsement with an emoji. Such comments are common for genuine fans but are also frequently produced by engagement bots or low-effort commenters. With a single comment and no context (no commenter profile data, no timestamps, no other comments or likes shown) the assessment is necessarily tentative. The moderate fakeness score reflects the ambiguity: brevity and generic praise raise suspicion of inauthenticity, but the content is equally consistent with a real follower expressing affection.\n\nFor advertising-feasibility decisions this data point is weak. Recommended next steps before buying ads or partnerships: inspect the commenter(s) profiles (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), check comment patterns across multiple posts (repeated identical comments), review timing (many similar comments in short timeframe), measure overall engagement metrics (likes per post, comment-to-follower ratio, reach estimates), and look for diversity of comment content and substantive engagement (questions, tagged friends, long-form praise). With only this comment, I rate the post's influencer reliability as low-to-moderate (overall_score 35) and suggest further data collection to reach a confident decision." }

Text: Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine question / informational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks for practical information about the duration of the treatment; indicates active interest in the service/product." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment present ('Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?') reads as a natural, targeted question from a potential customer — not a generic compliment or obvious bot text. It suggests genuine interest rather than promotional or spammy intent. However, one comment is an extremely small sample from which to draw firm conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For influencer advertising decisions this is mildly positive (engaged, relevant audience), but insufficient on its own. I recommend requesting a larger sample of comments, engagement rates over time, follower demographics, and running bot-detection / anomaly checks (e.g., comment timing patterns, repeated phrasing, account age of commenters) before committing to purchase. Given the limited data, the fakeness estimate is low but with moderate uncertainty, and the overall suitability score is cautiously above midpoint but also low-confidence." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "testimonial / personal experience", "count": 1, "purpose": "User reports perceived timing of product/effect (endorsing effectiveness after a few days)." }, { "type": "positive engagement / reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval/enthusiasm (emoji used to amplify positivity and social signaling)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads in German as a brief, positive testimonial: “On the 5th, 6th day the effect is then fully there for you as well. 🙌”. Indicators of authenticity: specificity about timing (5th–6th day) and use of an emoji suggest a human-style response. Indicators of possible inauthenticity: slight grammatical oddity (“bei die” instead of standard phrasing), shortness and promotional tone could be consistent with a copied/seeded comment. With only one comment provided, assessment is highly uncertain. For influencer-ad feasibility this single positive comment is mildly encouraging but insufficient as evidence of genuine, broad audience engagement. Recommended next checks before purchasing advertising: analyze overall comment volume and diversity across multiple posts, inspect commenter profiles for real followers/activity, look for repeated identical phrasing across posts (pattern of seeded/fake replies), compare comment timing to post time (burst patterns), and evaluate overall engagement-to-follower ratio. Based on this single comment, I grade fakeness as low-to-moderate (30/100) and the post's suitability for advertising as moderately positive (60/100), but confidence is limited due to the extremely small sample." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Solicit opinions and experiences about a fast-acting BTX product (example: Korean brand). Indicates consumer interest in aesthetic treatments and product efficacy." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided, so conclusions are limited by sample size. The comment is in German, uses casual shorthand ('zB' = 'zum Beispiel'), contains no promotional language, no links, and asks for opinions about a fast-acting BTX (likely referring to a cosmetic injectable product). That phrasing and the direct question format are typical of authentic user engagement seeking peer feedback. Fakeness risk is low because the comment lacks hallmarks of bot/promo content (generic praise, emojis-only, repeated phrases, referral links). For advertising feasibility: this comment signals audience interest in quick-result aesthetic solutions and awareness of Korean products, which can be valuable for beauty brands or clinics targeting such consumers. However, with only one comment, you should request a larger sample of comments (and other engagement metrics: like ratio, comment timestamps, commenter profiles) before making a final buying decision." }

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": 85, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / information-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about surgical outcomes (ability to move eyebrows after a browlift); seeking practical information or reassurance." }, { "type": "Personal anecdote / experience-sharing", "count": 1, "purpose": "User reports their own experience (cannot move eyebrows after surgery) to compare and solicit insight." }, { "type": "Engagement / conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct interaction with the influencer to start or continue a discussion; indicates follower interest." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears authentic and organic: it is specific, context-rich, and includes a personal experience plus a direct question, which are typical of real followers rather than bots or promotional accounts. Fakeness is assessed as low (10/100) with high confidence (85/100). For advertising feasibility, the comment signals a relevant, engaged audience interested in cosmetic procedures — a positive sign — but one comment is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion about overall audience quality. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments (volume, diversity, timing), commenter profiles, like-to-comment ratios, and broader engagement metrics before finalizing an ad purchase. Based on this single example, overall suitability is moderately high (70/100) with moderate confidence (60/100)." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question / personal inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks practical/medical advice about side effects (how to avoid eyelid sagging after frown-line treatment); indicates personal concern and intent to engage with creator or community" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears genuine and human: informal spelling ('irgwndwas'), topic-specific phrasing ('Haut ums Auge', 'Zornesfaltenbehandlung') and a request for advice point to a real follower or potential patient rather than a bot or promotional account. As a signal for advertising feasibility, this comment shows topical audience interest (cosmetic/dermatology concerns), which is useful for advertisers in that niche. However, the sample is extremely small (one comment), so you cannot infer overall engagement quality or authenticity of the broader comment section. The presence of questions about negative outcomes (sagging) suggests the audience may be skeptical or seeking reassurance — a brand or clinic should respond with authoritative, empathetic information. Overall, low likelihood of fakeness but limited data; moderate-to-low score for using this post alone to decide on ad purchase without more metrics (total comments, likes, commenter profiles, comment diversity and timing)." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick praise/approval and visible engagement (expresses enthusiasm without substantive content); often used by genuine fans but also common in low-effort or automated comments." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a five-fire-emoji reaction: a generic, positive, low-information engagement. With only this one short emoji comment there is very little signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or authenticity. Emoji-only comments are commonly left by both real followers and automated/batch-engagement services, so this sample leans slightly toward being non-meaningful or possibly inauthentic (hence the moderate fakeness score) but confidence is low due to the extremely small sample. For advertising feasibility, this comment alone does not provide evidence of a valuable, engaged audience—recommend reviewing a larger, representative set of comments, engagement patterns (likes vs comments), follower quality, and commenter profiles before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive compliment / endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "praise and social approval (short endorsement; signals appreciation and informal approval of the people in the post)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided — \"Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓\" — reads as a straightforward, informal compliment/endorsement. It contains natural language and emoji, which are common in genuine engagement. With only one example, it's impossible to draw robust conclusions about the overall comment authenticity for the account: the low fakeness score (15) reflects that this comment appears organic, but the confidence is limited because a single comment is a small, non-representative sample. For influencer-ad feasibility, this one positive comment is mildly supportive (overall score 55) but not sufficient evidence of healthy, authentic audience engagement. I recommend analyzing a larger set of comments for patterns (repeated phrasing, timing bursts, account age/activity, like-to-comment ratios, follower overlap) and checking commenter profiles to better assess authenticity before making ad purchase decisions." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation/affection; generic engagement with low informational value. Could reflect a genuine fan reaction, simple acknowledgement, or low-effort/bot interaction." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided ('❤️❤️❤️'). That indicates positive sentiment but very low informational content. Emoji-only comments are common, easy to produce, and do not by themselves demonstrate meaningful audience engagement, purchase intent, or commenter authenticity. Given the limited sample, the assessment of fakeness is tentative: hearts can be genuine but are also the type of content produced by automated/low-effort accounts. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient evidence to judge audience quality; you should analyze a larger set of comments (volume, diversity, specificity), commenter account quality (followers, activity, account age), like-to-comment ratios, and temporal patterns before deciding. Based on this lone comment, I rate the comment set as weak signal for ad spend." }

Text: Was würde diese Behandlung im Set den kosten?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks about the price/cost of a treatment — indicates real purchase interest or service inquiry from a follower." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment in German asking about the cost of the treatment. Its phrasing is specific and context-related (not generic praise or use of emojis), which strongly suggests a real person expressing purchase intent rather than a bot or spam. However, one comment is an extremely small sample for judging the audience or engagement quality; additional data (number of comments, commenter profiles, likes, time distribution, replies from the influencer) is needed to confirm authenticity and audience value. For ad-purchase decisions, this is a small positive signal but insufficient alone — verify follower quality, engagement rate, and patterns of comments before committing." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine engagement / purchase intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enthusiasm and explicit intent to book a service — serves as a conversion lead and social proof for the influencer's offering." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a positive, enthusiastic message with an emoji and natural phrasing in German indicating the user just decided to make an appointment. It reads as a genuine follower/customer showing purchase intent and provides some social proof. However, this is only one data point: the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or broad audience intent. Fakeness is assessed as low (10) with moderate-high confidence because the language and detail appear natural, but certainty is limited by lack of more comments and broader engagement context. For advertising feasibility, this comment is a favorable signal (real interest), but you should evaluate overall comment volume, like-to-follower ratio, diversity of commenters, timing patterns, and any repetitive/comment-template signs before committing. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments, account follower quality, and engagement rates to increase confidence." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/engagement (ambiguous sentiment)", "count": 1, "purpose": "short personalized reaction: appears intended as an affectionate or playful engagement (contains emojis). Wording is odd/possibly a typo, so it provides low actionable information." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment ('Bei dir fühlt man auch nichts 🥰💁🏻‍♀️') looks like a human, informal reply rather than a stock spam message — the use of emojis and casual phrasing support that. However, the text is ambiguous (possible typo or nonstandard phrasing), so it's low signal for sentiment or intent. With only one comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or community quality. For advertising feasibility, this sample yields low confidence: it neither indicates strong, clearly positive, organic engagement nor obvious bot/farm activity. Recommend a broader audit: collect a larger sample of comments, examine commenter profiles (age, followers, posting history), comment-to-follower ratio, timing patterns, repetition/generic phrases, and like counts. If most comments mirror this one (short, personalized, emoji-rich, from real-looking accounts), the influencer may be usable; if you instead find many generic/promotional comments or many commenters with suspicious profiles, avoid purchase or negotiate safeguards." }

Text: Botox in den trapezius…😳

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "observational/critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise and call attention to a possible cosmetic procedure (Botox in the trapezius); likely meant to criticize or question the influencer's appearance/choices and provoke discussion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Botox in den trapezius…😳') reads as a human, context-specific reaction: surprised and possibly critical or curious about perceived Botox in an unusual area (trapezius). It uses an emoji and specific anatomical language, which reduces likelihood of being a generic bot/spam message. As a dataset for ad-buy decisions this one comment suggests organic, engaged viewers noticing cosmetic procedures — potentially a reputational consideration for brands sensitive to medical/cosmetic associations. However, one comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or authenticity. Recommendation: review a larger sample of recent comments, engagement rates, follower quality, and sentiment trends before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (laughing emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement/positive reaction; very low informational value and low signal about user intent or purchase interest." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of three laughing emojis was provided. Emoji-only comments are common from real users but are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or bots; with no metadata (commenter profile, timing, repetition, like count) it's impossible to reliably classify authenticity. As a signal for advertising feasibility this comment is weak — it shows surface-level positive engagement but no actionable interest, sentiment nuance, or audience insight. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, commenter account details (follower counts, activity), timestamps, repetition patterns, and overall engagement rates to assess quality of the influencer's audience and likelihood of effective ad performance." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction but gives little information about purchase intent or authentic endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "The available comments consist of a single emoji-only reply (😂😂😂). Emoji reactions are common and often genuine, but they are low information: they show attention or amusement but do not indicate product interest, trust, or purchase intent. With one short reaction it's impossible to judge whether comments are organic, engagement-pod driven, or bot-generated; the low complexity and lack of additional context slightly increase the chance of non-meaningful or coordinated engagement. For advertising feasibility this single comment is a weak signal — it contributes to vanity engagement but provides almost no evidence of an engaged, conversion-ready audience. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, timestamps, commenter profiles (follower counts, bio content, activity), like-to-comment ratios, repetition/duplication patterns, and reply threads before deciding on ad spend." }

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": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Promotional / Branded jingle copy", "count": 1, "purpose": "Advertising/brand promotion — reposting or quoting a marketing jingle to promote a product (Zott Sahnejoghurt)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a verbatim, lyrical advertisement (a brand jingle) rather than a spontaneous personal reaction. That pattern is typical of promotional activity: either the brand itself, a partner/affiliate, or an account instructed to repeat campaign copy. This raises the likelihood the comment is not organic audience engagement. Given only one comment to analyze, the assessment is tentative; if the rest of the post's comments show many similar jingle-type repeats, that would indicate coordinated or paid amplification and lower genuine engagement value for an advertising buy. For influencer decision-making: treat this as a warning sign — request a larger, time-sequenced comment sample, inspect commenter account authenticity (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), and check replies/likes on comments. If many comments are similarly promotional, reduce expected campaign ROI and negotiate accordingly or seek influencers with more varied, conversational comments." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "observation / personal disclosure", "count": 1, "purpose": "Points out text on a Jägermeister bottle and discloses the commenter does not drink alcohol; mild engagement with the post (non-promotional, conversational)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short, context-specific comment is available. It appears genuine (low fakeness risk) and serves to engage with the post by noting an element in the image and stating a personal preference. This comment does not indicate promotional intent or strong purchase interest and provides minimal signal about audience quality or conversion potential. Recommendation: gather a larger sample of comments, like counts, commenter profiles, and engagement rates before making an advertising purchase decision. Current evidence is insufficient to support a high advertising suitability score." }

Text: Das ist beeindruckend 👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic praise/compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive feedback and engagement; social proof/approval (brief compliment with emoji)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, \"Das ist beeindruckend 👏\", is a short, positive compliment with an emoji. Such comments typically serve as lightweight engagement and social proof. On its own it provides very limited information: it appears plausibly genuine but is generic enough that it could be produced by either a real follower or an automated/generic engager. Given the single data point, the assessment of comment authenticity and audience quality is low-confidence. For advertising feasibility you need more evidence: volume and diversity of comments, commenter account quality (real follower history, profile pictures, follower counts), like-to-comment ratios, patterns/timestamps (organic spread vs. bursty), and presence of substantive, specific comments or questions. Based on this single generic positive comment, the post shows minimal but positive engagement — not enough to justify a high advertising investment without further data." }

Text: All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine_positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise / amusement / social proof — expresses appreciation and engagement (uses emoji), likely a real follower or acquaintance rather than a bot or promotional account." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️') reads as natural, context-specific, and contains emojis and colloquial phrasing, which are indicators of a genuine user reaction. There are no signs of promotional text, links, repetitive phrasing, or generic compliments typical of purchased comments. However, this is only one data point: it cannot reliably represent overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions you should analyze a larger sample (many comments, commenter account signals, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, follower quality, and repetition across posts). Based on this lone comment, fakeness is low but the overall suitability for ads is uncertain — more data is required." }

Text: Was geht 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short conversational / emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "general engagement — expresses amusement and familiarity; not promotional and shows no purchase intent" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Was geht 😂😂😂\" reads as a casual, likely genuine user reaction (informal greeting + laughter). It does not contain product endorsement, call-to-action, link, or sales language and provides no signal of buying intent. Fakeness likelihood is low because content is natural and non-generic; confidence is moderate-high given the limited sample. For advertising feasibility: this single comment indicates some audience engagement but no measurable commercial interest; recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments and commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, repetition patterns, posting timestamps) to detect coordinated or bot behavior and to assess audience relevance for the advertised product. Based on this isolated comment, score for ad purchase suitability is modest (limited evidence) with moderate confidence." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic_positive_emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/enthusiasm; increase visible engagement and social proof without providing substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it”) is a short, generic positive reaction composed of emojis and a brief praise. Such comments increase visible engagement but carry little qualitative information about audience fit or genuine interest in product recommendations. Characteristics that raise mild suspicion of inauthenticity: brevity, generic phrasing, and heavy emoji use — patterns commonly seen in low-effort real followers or automated/comment-farming activity. Characteristics consistent with authenticity: natural emoji variety and a plausible, simple fan response. Given only one comment and no context (commenter profile, comment timing, comment-to-like ratio, other comments), confidence is limited. For an advertising decision, this single comment provides weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommend reviewing commenter accounts, overall comment distribution (unique commenters vs repeated short comments), like-to-comment ratios, and recent engagement patterns before concluding. Based on this single comment, treat engagement quality as tentative and seek broader sampling." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "literary / cultural reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "engagement — quoting a well‑known line to evoke mood, show personality or create a witty/nostalgic connection with the post" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a famous German literary line ('Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind? …'). This looks like an organic, human-authored engagement (low fakeness). It is not promotional, contains no call-to-action, and gives little evidence about the audience quality or reach. For advertising feasibility this single comment is low signal: it suggests some audience affinity or cultural resonance but not meaningful volume or commercial intent. Recommendations: examine overall comment volume, diversity of commenters, commenter account authenticity (age, follower counts, profile activity), like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns and other posts for consistency before deciding on an ad buy. If you can provide more comments or the full comment thread and engagement metrics, I can give a higher-confidence assessment." }

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": 55, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Technical/instructional with humorous tone", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide practical, domain-specific advice (firefighting/hydrant/hoses) while adding a light/joking emoji to engage; signals expertise and playful engagement rather than generic praise or promotional intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a highly specific, technical instruction about a water extraction point (Unterflurhydrant), placement of a distributor, routing of a pipe to a fire compartment and 'lay the C-line yourself', followed by a laughing emoji. This suggests an authentic user with domain knowledge (likely firefighting or emergency services) attempting to give constructive/technical feedback and a light joke. The specificity and technical vocabulary reduce the likelihood of it being a generic bot or paid promotional comment, hence the low fakeness score (10). For influencer advertising feasibility: this one comment alone is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or engagement patterns. It indicates the post attracts at least some technically knowledgeable or niche-audience engagement, which can be valuable if the influencer's content aligns with that niche. However, because the sample size is one, the overall assessment is cautious (55) — recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, engagement ratios (likes/comments/views), timing patterns, and follower authenticity before making ad purchase decisions." }

Text: Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/Supportive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation or affirmation of the content; increases visible engagement and signals positive reception" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛\" (German: \"That was anything but pointless\") is a specific, positive reaction with an emoji. As a lone data point it appears likely genuine rather than generic bot-speak: it references the content meaningfully and uses natural phrasing. However, one comment is insufficient to judge overall authenticity or engagement quality of the post or influencer. The low fakeness score reflects the likely genuineness of this particular comment; the modest confidence reflects the extremely small sample size. For an advertising feasibility decision, the available evidence is weak. Recommended next steps: collect more comments (quantity, timestamps), examine commenter profiles for real accounts vs. newly created or suspicious ones, check for repeated/generic phrases across posts, analyze like-to-comment and follower-to-comment ratios, look at comment diversity and sentiment over multiple posts, and verify engagement consistency. Based on only this comment, the post shows a positive reaction but provides limited support for ad purchase decisions." }

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": 75, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "topical / humorous organic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show familiarity with post content (in‑joke), signal community bonding and genuine follower reaction rather than promotional or bot activity." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a language‑specific, contextually detailed joke referencing Latin declensions and ends with 'IYKYK' and a laughing emoji. Its specificity, correct grammar and niche reference strongly suggest a human, organic commenter (not generic bot spam or promotional copy). Because you provided only one comment, overall inference is limited: authenticity of this comment is high, but sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the post's overall engagement quality or the influencer's audience authenticity. For advertising decisions, this example is mildly positive (shows at least some engaged, relevant followers), but you should review a larger set of recent comments, like patterns (repeated phrases, timing), follower-to-comment ratios, and engagement rates before committing to ad spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Skeptical / humorous question", "count": 1, "purpose": "Challenge the authenticity of the content; express doubt while being playful; provoke engagement/discussion." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided. Its tone is jokingly skeptical (asks who can prove there was no teleprompter), which suggests the commenter questions the authenticity of the performance/post. This single remark appears genuine rather than bot-like, but one comment is insufficient to judge overall audience authenticity or sentiment. For advertising decisions: a solitary skeptical comment is a minor red flag about perceived authenticity but not decisive. Recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments (volume, diversity of commenters, timing, comment likes, repeat accounts) and checking follower quality before finalizing purchase. Current assessment reflects limited data and moderate uncertainty." }

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": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal anecdote / quoted memory", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a remembered phrase/idea and express that it has stuck in the commenter’s head (nostalgia/reflection)." }, { "type": "cryptic / unclear language (possibly machine-translated)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Produce attention or emotional reaction through a poetic/fragmented line; message is hard to parse and may be translated or non-native, lowering usefulness for ad analysis." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads like a personal, somewhat poetic fragment (part English, part German) where the commenter notes they read the line long ago and it stayed with them. It does not promote anything, ask questions, or reference the influencer’s content directly. The language is awkward and mixed, which could be due to non-native English or automated translation, but the presence of a German sentence that fits context suggests a real person rather than clear bot spam. Fakeness is judged low (15/100) but not zero because odd phrasing leaves some ambiguity. For advertising-feasibility: this comment provides little useful engagement signal (no product interest, no call-to-action, no clear sentiment tied to promoted content). Based on this single comment, overall comment quality and relevance are low — not a good indicator of engaged, campaign-ready audience. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, and engagement rates before purchase decisions." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 90, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "nostalgic / humorous personal reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal memory and amusement (nostalgia about 90s commercials) — drives engagement and signals emotional connection to the content." }, { "type": "promotional / spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "No signs of self-promo, links, or advertising in the provided comment." }, { "type": "generic / emoji-only", "count": 0, "purpose": "No purely generic responses or emoji-only comments present." }, { "type": "bot-like / repetitive", "count": 0, "purpose": "No apparent bot indicators (generic templates, repeated phrasing, irrelevant hashtags)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a natural, specific, and context-relevant remark (nostalgic humor about 90s commercials with an emoji). This pattern is consistent with authentic audience engagement rather than purchased or bot-generated comments. Confidence in the authenticity of this comment is high, but the sample size (one comment) is too small to draw robust conclusions about the overall comment quality on the post or the influencer's audience authenticity. For advertising-purchase decisions this single comment is mildly positive — it indicates emotional resonance with the content — but you should analyze a larger sample: comment volume relative to follower count, comment diversity, timestamps, repeat commenters, like counts, and presence of promotional/spam comments before making a final buy decision." }

Text: Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine/requesting engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "User asking for/expressing interest in a product or service (playful request), likely seeking attention or demonstrating interest" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment in German: \"Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️\". Tone is casual and playful (laugh and hand-raise emojis) and reads like a user asking to receive or try a specific offering ('Full Freeze' — likely a product, treatment, or move). Language-specific, colloquial phrasing and emoji use reduce the likelihood of a generic bot. However, this is only one comment, so sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or engagement quality for the influencer's account. For advertising feasibility: this single, apparently genuine engagement is a small positive signal but insufficient to justify investment on its own. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (varied posts), examine commenter profiles for real accounts (follower counts, posting history, interaction patterns), check comment timestamps/velocity, look for repeated phrasing across comments (sign of inorganic engagement), and compute engagement rate vs. follower count. Based on current evidence, I estimate low fakeness for this comment but only moderate/low confidence and a cautious overall suitability score 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": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "sarcastic / humorous personal anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "Entertain and provoke reaction; express an opinion about cosmetic procedures and personal identity; increase visibility/engagement via exaggerated bragging." } ], "interpretation": "The comment is long, specific, uses natural language, emojis and humor, and references a personal behavior (\"I always have 30 injections\"). These characteristics strongly suggest a real human voice rather than a bot or generic spam (hence low fakeness). The tone is teasing/sarcastic and potentially polarizing — it mocks \"natural\" looks and boasts about conspicuous spending and lack of facial expression. For influencer advertising assessment: this single comment indicates engaged, niche-relevant audience interest in aesthetics/beauty topics and willingness to interact, but it is only one data point. It is not promotional or inorganic, so it is a positive sign for authenticity, but you should analyze a larger sample of comments, like/comment ratios, follower quality, and repetitiveness before making a buy decision. If many comments resemble this (specific, varied, humorous), that supports good organic engagement for beauty-related ads; if most comments are short/generic, that would lower reliability." }