Job: @docmerita

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reaction / encouragement — lightweight engagement and social proof; low informational value (doesn't indicate purchase intent or meaningful audience sentiment)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single emoji-only comment (\"👏👏👏\") was provided. Emoji applause is a common, low-effort form of engagement that can come from genuine followers, casual viewers, members of engagement pods, or automated/bot accounts. On its own it is ambiguous and provides little evidence for or against authenticity. The relatively low fakeness score reflects that such comments are frequently genuine but are also easy to fabricate and therefore not highly trustworthy. The overall score for advertising-feasibility is low because one shallow comment is insufficient to judge audience quality or engagement health. Recommended next steps before any ad purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history, avatar, bio), review comment timing patterns, compare likes-to-comments and views-to-engagement ratios, and look for repeated phrasing or suspicious user clusters. With only this comment, confidence in the assessment is low." }

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 were supplied for analysis" } ], "interpretation": "No comments were provided in the request. I cannot identify comment types, purposes, or estimate fakeness without the actual comment text or a comment export/screenshot. Please supply the comments (copy/paste or JSON list) and I will perform the requested analysis and scoring." }

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": 75, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Health misinformation / medical advice", "count": 1, "purpose": "Communicate incorrect or unverified health claims (vitamin D and cancer causation; sunscreen harm) presented as fact to persuade readers." }, { "type": "Personal opinion / reassurance", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a personal belief and reassure others (\"Solange dein Körper nicht zu lange in der Sonne ist, ist alles okay\"), signaling endorsement of a particular behavior." }, { "type": "Skeptical / anti-establishment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Undermine authority/medical consensus by claiming 'Viele Ärzte sind gegen diese Sonnenkremen', which casts doubt on mainstream advice and products." }, { "type": "Engagement / attention-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short declarative statements and an emoji that invite agreement, reactions or debate." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment contains clear health misinformation presented as factual advice: it incorrectly links vitamin D deficiency to causing skin cancer and questions the value of sunscreens. Linguistic features (typos, informal phrasing, emoji) and the mixed factual/opinion content suggest an organic individual comment rather than a polished promotional or bot message, but it promotes a risky narrative for health-related topics. For influencer advertising: this signals potential audience segments receptive to anti-sunscreen/alternative-health messaging and a conversation environment where medical claims are spread without evidence — a reputational risk for advertisers in health, skincare, pharmaceuticals, and similar regulated categories. Recommendation: flag posts with similar comments for closer moderation and perform a broader sentiment/content analysis across many comments before approving health-related ads. Given only one comment, conclusions are tentative; more data (volume, commenter profiles, comment timestamps, other engagement) is needed for a reliable buy/no-buy decision." }

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": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "constructive/critical suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "User gives a practical seating suggestion/critique (advice for the poster and others), indicates they read the post and are responding with a personal opinion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (in German: “understandable.. then you could sit in the aisle (better for you and for others who like to look out the window)”) reads as a genuine, context-specific suggestion or mild critique rather than promotional or spammy content. It demonstrates real user engagement with the post's content. Fakeness is low based on natural language and specific context. However, the sample is very small (one comment), so this provides limited evidence about overall audience quality or authenticity. For advertising decisions, this is a weak data point — recommend analyzing volume and diversity of comments, like-to-comment ratio, follower quality, timing patterns, and other posts' engagement before concluding. Overall I give a cautious mid/low feasibility score because authenticity looks plausible but engagement sample is insufficient." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user_question / product inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Information seeking about product efficacy for a specific use case (8-hour flight) — indicates genuine consideration and potential purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a direct, context-specific question in German about whether the sunscreen lasts an 8-hour flight. Linguistic cues (specific duration, practical scenario: flight) and natural punctuation suggest a real user asking for product details rather than a generic bot or promotional reply. Fakeness is low. For influencer advertising feasibility this is a positive signal — the audience is asking use-case questions, which shows active consideration and relevance to travel-related campaigns. Caveats: this is one comment only, so sample size is too small to conclude overall audience authenticity or engagement depth. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments (volume, diversity, timing, replies from influencer) before final buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "informational", "count": 1, "purpose": "share factual detail/clarification about cockpit protective films — contributes topic-relevant information and engages with the post content" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a topic-specific, natural-language remark (German) adding a factual detail. It reads like an authentic user contribution rather than generic praise or promotional spam. Given its specificity and neutral tone, the likelihood of it being fake is low. However, this is only one comment — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience quality or bot presence. For advertising feasibility: this isolated comment is a small positive signal (real engagement on-topic) but insufficient alone to confirm healthy, buyable engagement. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, overall comment-to-follower ratio, repetition patterns, and follower authenticity before making a purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic/engaged feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Responds to post content with a brief evaluation and a personal choice; includes a compliment ('Gute Info') and a personal preference ('I will keep the window up'), indicating genuine engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is written in natural German, refers specifically to the post content (mentions the window and the view), and contains a mix of appreciation and a personal stance. These are characteristics of an authentic, engaged follower rather than a bot, generic praise, or a promotional comment. Given only one comment to analyze, the sample is very small — confidence is limited. There is low evidence of inauthentic behavior in this comment (fakeness_score 10), but you should not base advertising decisions on a single data point. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments, check commenter account profiles (age, posting patterns, follower/following ratios), look at comment timing and diversity, and measure likes and reach to better judge engagement quality for ad purchases." }

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": 85, "overall_score": 88, "overall_confidence": 78, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Technical question / informational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks clarification about material properties (aircraft window acrylic) and UV protection; contributes factual information and initiates discussion." } ], "interpretation": "The comment appears to be a genuine, informed user question rather than generic praise or spam. It references specific technical details (acrylic glass, absorption up to ~300 nm, 380 nm for full UV protection) and asks whether partial protection should be expected — indicating an engaged, subject-aware follower. This is a positive signal for organic engagement quality: commenters are asking substantive questions rather than posting templated responses. Given only one comment was provided, this assessment is limited; to confidently judge overall comment authenticity for advertising decisions, review a larger sample for patterns (repeated phrasing, timing clusters, meaningless emojis, or promotional links). For ad feasibility: this single comment suggests an audience with genuine interest and topic knowledge, supportive of niche or technical products (e.g., UV-protective gear, eyewear, travel safety)." }

Text: Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical / Sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express skepticism or mock marketing language ('well aging'); signals negative sentiment or resistance to buzzwords and tests authenticity of messaging." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘') reads as a genuine, likely native German speaker's sarcastic/critical reaction to the use of the phrase 'well aging' in the post. Fakeness is low — it's short, context-specific and carries a natural tone rather than generic praise. However, this is only one comment, so the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall comment section or audience. For advertising decisions: the presence of critical comments can indicate an engaged, authentic audience (positive for real reach) but also a segment that reacts negatively to certain marketing language. I recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios, and follower quality before making a buy decision. Current overall suitability for advertising is moderate (55/100) with low confidence due to limited data." }

Text: Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question / genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for clarification / mild critique about a choice (asks why an aisle seat wasn't booked). Indicates topical, situational engagement and interest in the content." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?') is a natural-language question in German asking why an aisle seat wasn't booked. It reads as a genuine viewer reaction rather than a promotional or bot-generated message: short, context-specific, no repetitive phrasing, emojis, or marketing language. This suggests authentic (organic) engagement on this item, but the sample size is extremely small (one comment) so any inference about the overall audience or influencer authenticity is weak. For advertising feasibility: the presence of at least one relevant, real-sounding comment is a small positive signal, but it's insufficient to judge overall engagement quality, follower authenticity, or conversion potential. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments (volume, repetitiveness, timing), likes per comment, follower profiles, and comment-to-follower ratio before making a purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Confused/questioning with humor", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express confusion about the post's relevance or connection between elements, while using humor (emoji) to soften the tone and invite clarification or reply." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: a casual, German-language reaction asking \"What does one have to do with the other, huh? 😂\". This reads as a genuine, spontaneous user response expressing confusion and mild amusement rather than a promotional or generic endorsement. There are no clear bot signals (no repeated phrases, no self-promotion, context-specific phrasing and emoji). However, the sample size is one comment, so it's a very weak signal for assessing overall audience quality or authenticity. For advertising feasibility this single comment is neutral-to-slightly-positive in terms of real engagement (shows conversational interest) but provides insufficient evidence of a responsive, relevant, or brand-aligned audience. Recommendation: collect more comments, likes, commenter profiles, timing patterns and language distribution before making a buying decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal reaction / positive surprise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/engagement (emotional reaction + emojis). Likely a genuine viewer comment intended to react positively to the content rather than to promote or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Oha ich werd braun wenn ich fliege???😍😍') is informal, in German, uses punctuation and emojis and does not contain promotional language, links, or repeated phrasing — characteristics that point toward a genuine personal reaction rather than a bot or paid engagement. Given only one comment, however, this is a very limited sample and not sufficient to judge the overall authenticity of the post's comment section or the influencer's audience. Recommended next steps before an advertising decision: sample a larger set of comments across recent posts, check commenter account quality (age, followers, activity), look for repeated phrases or timing patterns indicative of engagement pods/bots, and compare comment-to-follower and like-to-comment ratios. Initial signal: slightly positive for authenticity, but insufficient evidence to make a confident ad-purchase decision." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (😂)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort engagement expressing amusement; increases visible engagement but gives no audience insight or endorsement strength." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is a lone laughing-emoji (😂). Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers or come from engagement farms/bots/engagement pods that post minimal content to inflate numbers. Because it contains no content indicating purchase intent, audience relevance, or depth of engagement, it is low informational value for ad targeting. Given the minimal sample size, the assessment is highly uncertain. For advertising feasibility, this single emoji is a weak positive signal (some engagement) but insufficient to conclude the audience is authentic, attentive, or conversion-ready. Recommendation: request more data (full comment set, commenter profiles, engagement rates over multiple posts, follower quality metrics) before making an advertising buy." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical opinion / debate", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disagreement with the influencer's risk-averse position, defend personal freedom/enjoyment, and provoke discussion with a mild sarcastic tone." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a nuanced, opinionated reaction (negative/critical) rather than a short generic praise or spammy plug. It references specific details ('she is a doctor', concern about children looking out windows), uses an emoji (🙈) and colloquial German phrasing, all of which are cues of a genuine human response. Purpose is to push back against what the commenter sees as excessive risk-aversion and to argue for 'live and let live' — i.e., social commentary and debate. For advertising feasibility: this comment indicates engaged, conversational followers who will voice disagreement; it is not hostile or hateful, so low brand-safety risk from this sample. However, this is only one comment — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience quality or authenticity. Recommendation: review a larger comment set for patterns (many short/generic compliments → higher fake risk; many nuanced, varied reactions → more authentic audience)." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "advisory / organic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Gives practical advice/warning (leave blinds open; use sunscreen against UV). Engages with the creator/post content in a conversational way." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is written in colloquial German, contains a specific piece of advice and no promotional language, links or repeated marketing phrases — characteristics consistent with a genuine user response. It signals topical engagement (health/sun/UV) rather than praise or spam. Given only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience quality or authenticity. For advertising-feasibility: this comment suggests some real, topical interaction but provides no evidence of broad, active, or targeted engagement needed to justify an ad buy on its own. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments for repetition, timing, user profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), comment-to-like ratio, and presence of generic/prompted replies to better assess fake vs. real engagement before purchase." }

Text: Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Opinion / Engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express a personal preference/comparison (claims internal medicine is more interesting); likely friendly banter or light debate to engage the poster and other readers." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁') is a short, opinionated remark in German with emojis. It contains no generic marketing language, no links, no repeated phrases, and appears conversational — characteristics that point toward a genuine human response rather than an automated/bot comment. Because there is only one comment provided, the sample size is too small to draw robust conclusions about the overall audience authenticity or quality. For advertising feasibility: this single data point indicates some engagement but low volume and limited positive endorsement for a paid promotion. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments (variety, repetition, timing), likes, follower metrics, and commenter profiles before deciding to purchase advertising on this influencer." }

Text: Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humor/reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ausdruck von Amüsement und Engagement; reagiert auf den Content mit Lachen/Spass" } ], "interpretation": "Die vorliegende einzige Kommentarzeile („Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂\") ist eine kurze, spontane Reaktion mit humoristischem Ton. Sie wirkt natürlich und zielgerichtet (kein offensichtlicher Werbe- oder Bot-Charakter, keine generische Promo, keine Hashtags/Links). Aufgrund des Inhalts dient der Kommentar der sozialen Bestätigung des Posts (emotionale Reaktion/Engagement), nicht der Produktwerbung oder Conversion. Wichtige Einschränkung: Es liegt nur ein einzelner Kommentar vor — daraus lassen sich keine belastbaren Aussagen zur Gesamtauthentizität der Kommentarbeiträge, zur Engagement-Rate oder zur Zielgruppenechtheit ableiten. Für eine fundierte Entscheidung über Werbeeinkauf empfehle ich zusätzliche Prüfungen: Analyse von Gesamtkommentarvolumen und Vielfalt, zeitliche Verteilung der Kommentare, Wiederholungen identischer Phrasen, Like-/Follower-Verhältnis, Anteil qualitativ hochwertiger Kommentare (Fragen, längere Meinungen), sowie technische Checks (Follower-Bots, plötzliche Wachstumsraten). Basierend auf dieser einzelnen Äußerung ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass dieser Kommentar echt ist, hoch, aber die Evidenz für Werbeeignung des Influencers insgesamt ist unzureichend." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement that increases visible activity but gives no substantive feedback about content or product." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: four laughing emojis. Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine (friends/followers reacting) or produced by low-effort bots/engagement farms. Given the extremely small sample size, it's not possible to strongly judge authenticity or audience quality. The comment provides no actionable endorsement or product-related feedback, so it is a weak signal for advertising effectiveness. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments and metadata (timestamps, commenter profiles, comment diversity, repetition patterns, follower counts of commenters) before making an advertising purchase decision. Current assessment: low confidence in comment authenticity and low usefulness for ad targeting." }

Text: Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emotional reaction / laugh with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and positive reaction; lightweight engagement / social proof" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂\" (German: \"I'm laughing my head off\"). This is a positive, emotion-driven reaction using multiple emojis. Strengths: signals that at least one viewer found the content amusing and responded, providing minimal social proof. Weaknesses / limits: the comment is generic and non-specific (no reference to product, brand, or message), so it has low marketing value. Short emoji-heavy comments are common from real followers but are also easy for bots or engagement farms to replicate; with only one comment available the sample size is too small to reliably detect coordinated or fake behavior. Given that, the assessed fakeness is low-to-moderate (score 20) but confidence is limited (45). For advertising-feasibility the signal is weak: this single comment does not demonstrate engaged, relevant, or persuasive audience behavior (overall score 35, confidence 40). Recommended next steps before purchasing ad space: obtain the full set of post comments, comment timestamps, commenter account profiles (followers, activity, language), likes-to-followers ratio, recurrence of commenters across posts, distribution of comment types (questions, testimonials, complaints), and view/save/share metrics. Check for repeated generic comments, large numbers of short emoji-only replies, and commenter account quality to better assess authenticity and audience value." }

Text: Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / Positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration or positive emotional reaction to the post (short compliment + emojis). May indicate approval or excitement about the subject matter." } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is a single short comment: 'Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍' (German for 'obstetrics' or 'midwifery' with heart‑eyes emojis). The comment reads as a brief positive reaction and could be genuine enthusiasm from a follower or a topical tag referencing the content. Because it's single, short and lacks personal detail, it is ambiguous — neither strongly indicative of organic, engaged community nor clearly a bot/spam message. Fakeness risk is moderate-low (some generic comments are commonly used by bots or engagement farms), but confidence is limited due to insufficient data. Overall suitability for advertising is limited based on this single comment: there is positive sentiment but no evidence of deep engagement, conversation, or diverse authentic audience interaction. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, account age, posting behavior), like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and presence of repeated phrases across many posts before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: Chirurgie ♥️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive / emotive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/affection (heart emoji). Low informational content; typically intended to signal support or like the content." } ], "interpretation": "Sample size = 1 comment ('Chirurgie ♥️'). This is a short, single-word (French) + heart emoji message. Possible meanings: a genuine follower expressing enthusiasm (perhaps indicating interest in surgery/medical content), or a low-effort engagement typical of bots/engagement pods. There is insufficient data to draw strong conclusions. The moderate fakeness score reflects that templated short comments with emojis are commonly seen both from real fans and from fake/bot accounts; without profile metadata (account age, follower/following ratio, comment timestamps, repetition across posts) confidence is limited. Recommendation: analyze a larger comment sample and inspect commenter profiles for patterns (repeated identical comments across posts, high follow-back ratio, lack of profile photo or posts) before using this influencer for advertising. Current signals are weak-to-mixed; do not rely solely on these comments to decide ad purchase." }

Text: Dermatologie?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question", "count": 1, "purpose": "seeking clarification whether the post/content relates to dermatology (topic enquiry/interest)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment is available: a single-word question ('Dermatologie?') that most likely represents a genuine user asking whether the post is about dermatology. Fakeness risk is low for this comment, but the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall authenticity or quality of the account's engagement. A single topical question signals some viewer interest but does not indicate strong engagement (no follow-up, likes, or multiple commenters). For advertising-decisions, request a larger comment sample, check commenter account profiles (age, followers, posting behavior), comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios, and presence of conversational threads or repeated generic praise/spam. With current data, the post's comment signal is weak for assessing influencer credibility — treat as inconclusive." }

Text: @corinnafeldmeier 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user_mention_with_emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging another user to draw their attention and express a quick reaction (laughter). Social/relational engagement rather than substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a brief mention of another account (@corinnafeldmeier) plus a laughing emoji. This pattern typically indicates a friend or follower drawing someone else's attention to a funny post — low-information, high-social value engagement. It is not strongly promotional or specific to the content and provides little evidence of meaningful audience interest or purchase intent. Fakeness risk is relatively low because pure mention+emoji is common among authentic viewers, but automated/spam accounts also sometimes leave tags, so certainty is limited. For advertising decisions, this single comment is weak signal: it neither supports nor convincingly undermines authenticity, and overall engagement quality appears low. Recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (real follower vs. spam), comment frequency, and like-to-comment ratios before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive sentiment; low-effort engagement with no explicit purchase intent or substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Dataset: a single comment consisting of two laughing emojis (\"😂😂\"). Limitations: extremely small sample size—one short emoji-only comment—so any assessment is tentative. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers (quick, authentic reactions) but are also frequently used by bots or engagement farms because they are generic and require no context; therefore I assigned a moderate fakeness score (45) with low-to-moderate confidence (40). Practical meaning for advertising feasibility: this comment shows surface-level positive engagement but provides no evidence of meaningful audience interest, purchase intent, or influencer-audience relationship depth. Overall score (30) reflects that, based on available comments, the post does not demonstrate strong, actionable engagement for ad targeting. Recommendation: do not base an ad buy decision on this alone—collect more data (number of comments, variety, repeat commenters, comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratio, follower quality, content of longer comments, DM inquiries, and historical post performance) and run authenticity checks (look for repetitive short comments, account age/behavior, follower overlap) before proceeding." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal compliment / admiration", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses admiration and a personal connection to the subject (mentions career choice and motivation). Likely intended to praise, relate, or build rapport with the poster." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, specific-sounding compliment in German: \"My favorite profession... The only reason I went into the world of medicine.\" It reads as a personal remark rather than typical bot spam (it references a career choice and uses an emoji), so outright fakeness appears low. However, the sample size is tiny (one comment), so confidence is limited. Because there is only one comment, this provides almost no evidence about overall audience quality, engagement depth, bot prevalence, or ad receptiveness. For advertising-feasibility decisions, request broader data: number of comments per post, like-to-follower ratio, repetition of similar comments, language/demographic mix, and reply behavior. Based on this single comment alone, I rate the likelihood of it being fake at 20/100 (55% confidence) and give an overall suitability score for ads of 40/100 (45% confidence) — cautious but not dismissive, pending more comprehensive metrics." }

Text: HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Reaction / humorous engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and engagement with the post; references specific content (likely a situational joke), conveys positive sentiment with emojis." } ], "interpretation": "Comment translation: 'HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣' ('ENT came too late' with heart-eyes and laughing emojis). The message is context-specific and humorous, using content-referential text rather than generic praise or a promotional CTA. Emoji mix (positive + laughter) suggests a genuine amused reaction rather than a templated bot comment. Given only a single comment in the sample, this is weak evidence: low likelihood of being fake for this comment (fakeness_score 10), but the sample size prevents strong conclusions about the overall comments quality. For influencer advertising decisions, current evidence is insufficient — recommend reviewing a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), timing/clustering of comments, and repetition of phrases to better assess authenticity and audience quality before purchase." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Humorous reaction / emoji-rich", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and relatability; increase visible engagement/likes. Not promotional — a casual, social reaction to the post's content." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (\"😂😂😂😂😂 Die Fürze bei der Gastro killen mich 😂😂😂😂😂\") appears organic and conversational: heavy emoji use and colloquial German suggest a real person reacting with humor. It does not contain keywords typical of bots or coordinated promotional activity, nor does it attempt to sell or promote anything. For influencer advertising feasibility this comment conveys community tone (playful, informal) but provides almost no information about purchase intent, brand sentiment, audience demographics, or conversion potential. Confidence in low fakeness is moderate-high, but the overall assessment of the post's suitability for advertising is limited by sample size. Next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles for authenticity and follower counts, measure comment-to-like ratio and engagement over time, and evaluate whether comments show brand awareness or interest relevant to the advertiser." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 90, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / clarification", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks whether the post relates to ophthalmology (seeking context or confirming topic)." }, { "type": "Personal reaction (humor / discomfort / disengagement)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal discomfort about a medical procedure (gas release after DMEK) in a lighthearted way and indicates they would 'be out' — signals potential disengagement or negative sentiment about that aspect." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears genuine and from a real person with some knowledge of ophthalmic surgery (DMEK), combining a topical question with a personal, humorous expression of discomfort. This is not generic praise or obvious bot/spam behavior. For influencer ad feasibility: this suggests a niche, medically informed audience that engages authentically. That is favorable for targeted medical/healthcare advertising or specialised products, but the comment also signals sensitivity to surgical/medical content — general consumer ads may not perform the same. The sample is too small to draw strong conclusions; more comments and diversity of engagement are needed. Overall I rate comment set as largely authentic but limited in quantity, so moderate suitability for advertising pending fuller engagement data." }

Text: Gute Wahl

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive/generic praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Give quick positive reinforcement or social proof (low-effort engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Gute Wahl\" (German for \"Good choice\") is a short, generic positive remark. Such comments can be genuine (a follower or friend offering brief praise) but are also commonly produced by low-effort accounts or automated/bot behavior because of their brevity and generic wording. With only one comment present, the signal about audience quality and authentic engagement is very weak. For advertising feasibility: comments provide little evidence of an engaged, conversational community — this post alone does not indicate strong, high-quality comment engagement. I recommend reviewing additional signals before buying ads: comment volume across multiple posts, comment diversity and length, commenter account quality (profiles, followers, activity), like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and repetition of identical phrases across posts. Based solely on the single comment, I rate the post as low suitability for ad purchase." }

Text: Yeah Fließbandarbeit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative / sarcastic criticism", "count": 1, "purpose": "express dissatisfaction and accuse the content of being 'assembly-line' (mass-produced / low authenticity)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment is available: 'Yeah Fließbandarbeit' (German for 'assembly-line work'). It reads like an organic, critical reaction rather than a promotional or bot-driven message — concise, context-specific, and negative/sarcastic. Because the sample is a single comment, confidence is limited. For ad-buy decisions this single negative remark is a weak signal: it suggests at least some audience members perceive the creator's content as low-effort or inauthentic, which could reduce influencer effectiveness for campaigns requiring high trust. Recommended next steps: gather a larger sample of recent comments, analyze sentiment distribution, check engagement rate versus follower count, and screen for other signs of fake activity (repeated generic comments, comment-to-like ratio, sudden spikes)." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 78, "overall_score": 48, "overall_confidence": 42, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal anecdote / humorous reply", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a personal reaction (declining something), add humor with emoji and a comparative remark; signals rapport/solidarity rather than promotion." } ], "interpretation": "Translation of comment: \"I also politely declined 😂 only worse is 'Funktionsoberarzt' 😂.\" The comment reads as a short, informal, context-specific reply: the commenter reports having declined (likely an offer or suggestion) and jokes that the only thing worse would be a 'Funktionsoberarzt' (a specific medical job title). Tone is conversational and uses emojis, suggesting genuine individual engagement. Specific vocabulary ('Funktionsoberarzt') implies domain knowledge and lowers likelihood of being bot-generated or generic. Because only a single comment was provided, this is a very limited sample: the low fakeness score reflects the comment's specificity and natural tone, but cannot be generalized to the post's entire comment set. For advertising-purchase decisions, this single organic-looking comment is a small positive signal (real follower interest and topical relevance if the influencer’s audience includes medical professionals or German speakers) but insufficient alone to conclude authenticity or audience quality. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger random sample (50–200) of comments, check commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), time distribution of comments, like-to-comment ratios, repeated phrasing across comments, and presence of promotional or spammy messages before making a buy/no-buy decision." }

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": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/questioning engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show relatability and curiosity about household chores; generates engagement and light-hearted interaction with the creator/audience." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Und jetzt würde mich noch interessieren, wer saugt, wischt, Toilette putzt etc. 😅') reads as a natural, colloquial, and humorous question from a follower — not promotional, not generic, and lacking bot-like markers (no links, not repetitive, contains emoji and specific, context‑dependent wording). This suggests a genuine engaged viewer asking about distribution of household chores or making a playful remark about the content. However, with only one comment provided the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising feasibility this example is positive (shows engagement and topical relevance), but you should analyze a larger set of comments, commenter diversity, timing patterns, and account-level metrics (follower growth, like-to-comment ratios, repeated phrases) before making a buying decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Fachliche Nachfrage / Kritik", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ausdruck persönlicher Erfahrung, Nachfrage nach Plausibilität (kritisch-skeptische Frage), Einladung zu Erklärung oder Diskussion" } ], "interpretation": "Der Kommentar ist sehr wahrscheinlich authentisch und stammt offenbar von einer medizinischen Fachperson. Er kombiniert eine persönliche Anekdote (60%-Stelle, 40 Wochenstunden in der Neurochirurgie) mit offener Skepsis gegenüber der Behauptung im Post (wie könne ein leitender Oberarzt nur 40h arbeiten und in welchem Fach). Zweck ist primär Informationssuche und Kontrolle der Glaubwürdigkeit; tonalität ist kritisch, aber nicht beleidigend. Für die Werbefähigkeit des Influencers spricht, dass echte, fachkundige Follower interagieren — das erhöht die Wertigkeit der Zielgruppe und die Glaubwürdigkeit von Empfehlungen. Andererseits zeigt die kritische Nachfrage auch, dass die Community prüfend ist und nicht jede Behauptung ohne Weiteres akzeptiert; das bedeutet, Werbebotschaften müssen genau, belegbar und zielgruppengerecht sein. Da nur ein einzelner Kommentar vorliegt, ist die Stichprobe klein; Einschätzung der Gesamtauthentizität und Engagement-Qualität des Accounts bleibt medium und sollte durch Analyse weiterer Kommentare, Like-Raten und Follower-Authentizität ergänzt werden." }

Text: Top!👍🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/support and increase visible engagement (short endorsement)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Top!👍🏼') is available. This is a low-effort positive reaction typical of genuine quick follower responses but also common in lightweight/bot engagement. On its own it provides almost no evidence about audience quality, intent to purchase, or authentic engagement depth. Given the minimal data: fakeness is indeterminate (estimated moderate at 50) with low confidence. For advertising-feasibility assessment this is insufficient — overall suitability is low (score 30) with low confidence. Recommended next steps before any ad buy: collect a larger sample of comments, analyze commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, activity), check comment diversity and timing patterns, compute engagement rate (likes/comments relative to followers), and look for repeated generic comments or bot-like accounts." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "professional inquiry / genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "To ask about the poster's career path and express professional curiosity/networking interest" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is written in natural German and asks a specific, context‑dependent question: 'How did you move from ophthalmology to aesthetic medicine? I'm an internist and love my specialty — I'm just curious because I find such CVs interesting.' It references the commenter’s own medical specialty and uses a friendly emoji, which are both indicators of a real person with domain interest rather than a generic promotional or bot message. There are no stock praise phrases, repeated emojis, links, or calls-to-action typical of fake or promotional comments. Given only one comment, this is a small sample; the low fakeness score reflects high likelihood this individual comment is authentic, but it does not prove overall audience authenticity. For advertising feasibility: this comment is a positive signal that the account can attract niche, professionally relevant engagement (useful if your ads target medical professionals or credibility-focused audiences). However, basing an ad-purchase decision on a single comment is insufficient — I recommend reviewing a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity, cross-check for bot-like patterns), overall engagement rate, and comment diversity before committing." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "sarcastic/critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express skepticism/criticism about the post’s subject, signal negative sentiment or mockery; engages conversationally rather than providing informative feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Und jeder kriegt sogar noch ne Affäre unter, perfekt 😶‍🌫️') is sarcastic and negative, likely from a real human rather than a bot (low fakeness). It signals that at least some viewers perceive controversy or are critical of the topic/person in the post. As a lone data point it does not indicate a pattern of inauthentic engagement, but it does flag a potential reputational risk: if many similar comments appear, the influencer may be involved in controversial content that could reflect on advertisers.\n\nFor advertising feasibility: this single comment neither disqualifies nor strongly endorses the influencer. Recommend a broader comment-sample analysis (sentiment distribution, volume of similar complaints, timing), check overall engagement rate and follower authenticity before purchase. Proceed with caution; investigate whether negative/controversial sentiment is widespread." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Supportive / Motivational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express encouragement/approval of the post (social support, positive reinforcement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Es geht alles man muss nur wollen und sich organisieren können. 🔥🔥🔥\" is a generic motivational/supportive remark. Linguistically it is natural German and uses common emoji to signal enthusiasm — traits consistent with a real follower leaving a quick positive reaction. However, it contains no specific reference to the post content, no questions, and no personalized language, which are also characteristics of low-effort engagement that can be produced by either casual followers or automated/paid engagement. Given only one comment to analyze, there is low evidence of coordinated or clearly fake activity, but also insufficient evidence of strong, engaged audience interest. For advertising-feasibility decisions I recommend collecting more data: comment volume per post, comment diversity (questions, critiques, personal mentions), timing patterns, repetition of identical phrases across posts, like-to-comment ratios, follower authenticity checks, and creator response behavior. Based on this single comment the risk of inauthentic engagement appears low-to-moderate (fakeness 20/100), but confidence is limited. Overall suitability for advertising from the comment sample is below average (40/100) because the available engagement signal is minimal and non-specific; further analysis is required before a purchase decision." }

Text: Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Sarcastic / skeptical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disbelief or mock the post/claim; likely negative sentiment rather than supportive engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: \"Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂\" — a sarcastic, dismissive remark indicating skepticism about the post's content. This reads as organic (low likelihood of being a bot or purchased comment) and conveys negative sentiment. With only one sample, conclusions are limited: the audience member who commented appears critical rather than promotional, which could signal some audience distrust or that the content/claim is seen as implausible. For advertising decisions, this single sarcastic comment weakly suggests risk (audience may be skeptical), but the dataset is too small to be decisive. Recommend analyzing a larger set of recent comments, comment-to-follower ratio, engagement authenticity (likes, replies), and follower quality before making a buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal/organic reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/jealousy about the influencer's role in the post and engage conversationally (friendly remark, uses emoji and informal tone)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Zu, da kommst du aber sehr gut weg. Hätte dann auch lieber deinen Part😳') reads as a genuine, informal follower reaction: it references the influencer's portion of the content, conveys mild envy/compliment, and uses an emoji and a minor typo/punctuation pattern consistent with human typing. There are low indicators of automation or copy-paste bot behavior in this one sample. However, the sample size is extremely small and lacks metadata (commenter account age, follower count, repetition across comments, timing), so certainty is limited. For advertising decisions this single, likely-authentic comment is a small positive signal but insufficient alone to judge audience quality. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments for repetition or templated language, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts (profile picture, post history, follower/following ratio), check engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), and look at temporal/comment clustering to detect inorganic patterns. If multiple comments show similar personal language and varied users, confidence in authentic, engaged audience would increase; if comments are generic or repetitive, treat engagement as inflated." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/affection; low-effort engagement that inflates visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback on content or product." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a heart emoji (\"❤️\"). Emoji-only comments are common, low-effort signals of positive sentiment that can come from genuine followers or automated/mass-engagement accounts. With this single data point it is not possible to confidently determine authenticity or audience quality. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji-only engagement is easy to fabricate but is also frequently genuine; confidence is low due to the extremely small sample. For advertising feasibility, this one comment provides minimal evidence of an engaged, brand-relevant audience — the overall score is therefore modest and flagged with low confidence. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across several posts, inspect commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, profile photos, posting history), check for repeated or templated comments, evaluate comment timestamps (bursts), compute engagement rate (likes, comments relative to followers), and review story interactions and past sponsored post performance before making an advertising buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine user question / advice-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for skincare recommendations about facial pores (seek help, start conversation)" } ], "interpretation": "The single visible comment is German and reads \"Hat jemand Empfehlungen bzgl. Poren im Gesicht? 🥵\" — a clear, specific question requesting advice about facial pores, paired with an expressive emoji. This is characteristic of an authentic, engaged follower rather than a scripted or promotional comment (no generic praise, product tags, links, or repeated short tokens). However, a single comment is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or engagement quality on the account. Low sample size and lack of context (total comments, likes, commenter profile) reduce reliability. For advertising decisions: this lone, genuine-seeming comment is a positive sign for topical relevance if your product is skincare, but it does not demonstrate broad, active audience engagement or scalable interest. I recommend additional checks before purchase: comment volume and diversity across multiple posts, commenter account audits (real profiles, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and past sponsored-post performance." }

Text: 😍👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval/admiration with no substantive content; serves as lightweight engagement/social proof rather than conversation or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (\"😍👏\") is an emoji-only positive reaction. These comments indicate surface-level engagement but carry little information about follower intent, relationship to the creator, or purchase propensity. Emoji-only replies are commonly used by both genuine followers for quick praise and by automated/farm accounts to pad engagement, so the likelihood of being fake is moderate. Given only this one short comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge the overall audience quality or to recommend advertising spend. To improve assessment confidence, analyze a larger sample of comments (variety, length, questions, critiques), commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created/low-followers), engagement rate relative to follower count, timing patterns, and comment-to-like ratios." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Negative emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disapproval/shock at the post's content; signal disagreement and potentially prompt discussion or solidarity with other critics." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (German: 'Ich bin wirklich entsetzt über solche Aussagen…😮😮😮😮😮') is a short, negative emotional reaction expressing shock and disapproval. As a standalone item it appears more likely genuine than manufactured — the language is natural and the emojis reinforce an emotional response — so estimated fakeness is low (15/100) but not zero because short reactive comments can be faked or duplicated. Confidence in that fakeness estimate is moderate (60/100) because assessment is based on one comment without account metadata.\n\nFor influencer-advertising feasibility: one negative comment by itself is insufficient to draw strong conclusions. It does indicate at least some audience pushback to the post content, which could signal controversy or mismatched messaging for certain brands. Overall suitability for advertising is therefore below average (45/100) pending fuller analysis. Confidence in the overall assessment is limited (40/100) because you provided only a single comment; a robust decision requires more data (total comment volume, sentiment split, comment authors' account quality, like-to-follower ratio, comment timestamps, repetition patterns, and replies).\n\nRecommended next checks before purchasing advertising: collect a larger sample of recent comments and replies; examine commenter account age/follower counts for signs of bots; measure overall engagement rate and compare to benchmark; check sentiment distribution and whether negative comments are isolated or widespread; review whether the influencer responds constructively to criticism (community management)." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical/corrective", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disagreement with the post's depiction; correct perceived factual errors and call out inaccuracy." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a direct, detailed critique of the post's portrayal of a senior physician's working hours and family logistics. It reads like a genuine user reaction: specific domain knowledge (Oberarzt, typical hours), concrete examples (arrival times, daycare, preparing food early), emotive language and multiple emojis. There is no promotional language, generic praise, or bot-like repetition. Fakeness is therefore low (10/100) with good confidence (85%) because the content is specific and contextual. \n\nFor advertising feasibility: this comment indicates that at least some of the influencer's audience is engaged and willing to fact-check or challenge content; that can be positive (engaged, discerning audience) but also a risk if the influencer posts inaccurate or controversial claims that generate negative sentiment. Because only one comment was provided, the overall assessment is moderate (55/100) with limited confidence (60%) — the sample is too small to judge overall audience sentiment, volume, authenticity, or whether negative comments are isolated. \n\nRecommendations: examine a larger sample of comments for sentiment distribution, repeat commenters (to detect community vs. one-offs), engagement rate relative to follower count, and presence of generic/generic repeated comments (bot signatures). If many comments mirror this corrective tone, consider reputation risk for product placement or require content fact-checking and message alignment before purchase." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment about the creators' personal/professional path; general social approval to increase perceived value." }, { "type": "Professional peer / Industry endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Signals credibility and peer recognition (commenter identifies as an anesthetist who works with ophthalmologists), which acts as social proof for the influencer's professional offerings." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is long, specific, and context-rich (mentions ophthalmology, aesthetics, longevity and identifies the commenter as an anesthetist working with ophthalmologists). That pattern is consistent with a genuine peer-level endorsement rather than a short generic praise typical of bot/farm comments. Fakeness estimate is low (10/100) but not zero because a fabricated comment could be written to appear authentic. Sample size is extremely small (one comment), so you cannot infer overall audience quality, engagement patterns, or prevalence of fake comments on the account. For advertising decisions, this single authentic-seeming comment is a positive signal (peer credibility), but insufficient by itself to justify spend. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments for repetition or templated language, check commenter profiles (followers, activity, relevance), compute like-to-comment ratios and engagement rate, and inspect comment timing and language diversity. Based on the current evidence, treat the account as potentially viable but perform the above checks before purchase." }

Text: Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine/organic engagement (anticipation)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses interest and positive anticipation of the post outcome; signals basic audience engagement and friendliness (uses natural language and emoji)." } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is very small (one short comment). The single comment reads naturally in German ('Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌' — 'I'm looking forward to the result'), including an emoji and idiomatic phrasing, which lowers the likelihood it's fake (fakeness score 10). However, one short comment gives limited evidence: short comments can be left by real followers or by low-effort bot accounts, so confidence is moderate. For influencer ad-buy decisions this single comment is weak evidence of genuine, deep audience engagement. It indicates some positive sentiment/anticipation, but you need more data (total comment volume, comment diversity, commenter profiles, like counts, time pattern, saved/forward metrics, story views, follower quality) before deciding. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of recent posts and audience signals before committing to advertising spend." }

Text: Ja

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short affirmation / one-word response", "count": 1, "purpose": "simple positive engagement or acknowledgement (agreement/endorsement) with minimal informational content" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single, one-word comment ('Ja' — 'Yes' in Russian) is available. This is a generic, low-effort engagement that could be from a genuine follower, a casual viewer, or an automated/duplicate account — there is not enough context to strongly classify it as organic or fake. The low fakeness score reflects that short affirmations are commonly genuine but are also easy to fabricate; confidence is limited by the tiny sample. For advertising-purchase decisions, this single data point is insufficient: it does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, conversation, or targeted engagement. Recommend collecting more comments, commenter account quality (history, follower counts, activity), timestamp distribution, and overall engagement rate before making a buy/no-buy decision." }

Text: 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only / low-effort positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/celebration with minimal effort. Increases visible engagement but provides no substantive endorsement; could be from a genuine casual follower, an engagement pod member, or an automated/generic account." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a repeated 🙌 emoji sequence — a generic positive reaction with very low information value. Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine casual followers and from bots or engagement pods that aim to boost visible engagement. With only one comment available, signal is weak and conclusions are tentative. The relatively high fakeness score reflects the ambiguity and the common use of such comments in inauthentic engagement schemes; confidence is moderate because there is insufficient data. For an advertising decision, this single comment is not meaningful: you should review a larger sample of comments, commenter account quality (age, followers, activity), timing patterns, comment diversity, reply depth, and likes-to-comments ratios before proceeding. Based on this single data point, I recommend caution and further investigation rather than relying on the apparent engagement as evidence of authentic audience enthusiasm." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "testimonial/personal experience", "count": 1, "purpose": "Endorsement and social proof — the commenter reports a personal result ('1 week after I was at your place'), tags the service account and uses positive emojis to show satisfaction and provide visibility." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads like a genuine client testimonial: it references a specific time frame ('1 week after'), tags the service account, and uses natural language + emojis. Those elements lower the likelihood of a generic or bot comment. However, this is only one data point — the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or the influencer's engagement quality. Risks: a single positive comment can be paid or solicited, and there's no information here about the commenter's account, comment frequency, or how many similar comments exist. Recommendation: before buying ads, audit more signals — number and variety of comments, commenter account authenticity (profile age, follower ratio, content history), engagement rate relative to follower count, timing patterns, and likes on comments. Based on this lone comment, the post shows a modest positive signal but is insufficient alone to approve advertising spend." }

Text: Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine follower / customer intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses desire to return/visit and conveys positive sentiment/loyalty (personal engagement rather than promotional or generic spam)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, 'Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢', appears personal and context-specific (German language, emotional emoji), which makes it likely genuine rather than a templated bot or promotional spam. The wording is not generic (e.g., no repeated marketing phrases or tags) and implies a real previous experience with the account (intent to return), suggesting positive customer sentiment or follower loyalty. However, this is only one data point: sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising-buy decisions, this comment is a slight positive signal but insufficient alone. Recommended next steps: review a larger set of recent comments for repetition patterns, check commenter account ages/activity, measure overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), look for clusters of identical phrasing or high volumes of one-word comments, and verify follower authenticity (spambot indicators, follower growth spikes)." }

Text: Lieben wir ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive praise / emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/approval; low-effort engagement indicating a positive reaction (likely a follower or supportive acquaintance)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is 'Lieben wir ❤️' (German — 'We love (it/them) ❤️'). It is a short, positive, low-effort comment: praise plus an emoji. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient evidence to judge overall audience quality. Likely explanations: a genuine follower expressing approval, a casual/supportive acquaintance, or a generic engagement comment from an engagement pod/bot. The short phrasing and emoji are common in both real and low-effort fake comments; therefore fakeness is possible but not strongly indicated. Given the extremely small sample, the fakeness score is low-to-moderate (20) but confidence is limited (40). For advertising feasibility the single positive comment is encouraging but far from conclusive; overall suitability is therefore moderate-low (45) with low confidence (35). Recommendations: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for repetition/templated text, check commenter profiles for genuine follower signals (profile photos, posting history, follower counts, language consistency), compare like-to-comment ratios, and review comment timing and diversity before making ad-purchase decisions." }

Text: Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question", "count": 1, "purpose": "Information-seeking / product-service interest (clarification about treatment duration; potential purchase intent)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?' is a straightforward, natural-looking question in German asking how long a treatment lasts. This indicates genuine user interest and engagement rather than promotional, generic, or bot-like content. Fakeness is very low because the comment is context-relevant, not repetitive, and phrased as a human inquiry. However, the sample size is minimal (one comment), so conclusions about the account's overall comment quality and audience authenticity are limited. For advertising decisions, this comment is a positive signal of real interest but insufficient alone — evaluate comment volume, diversity, commenter profiles, timing, and like-to-comment ratios across more posts before committing to purchase." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "testimonial / personal experience", "count": 1, "purpose": "Reports when the product's effect becomes noticeable (social proof/endorsement), likely addressing or reassuring another user." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads in German: \"Am 5., 6. Tag ist dann auch bei die Wirkung voll da. 🙌\" — meaning that by the 5th–6th day the effect is fully present. This is a specific, time-based testimonial with an encouraging emoji. Specificity (exact days) and minor grammatical oddity (\"bei die Wirkung\" instead of \"bei dir\"/\"die Wirkung ist bei dir\") make it more likely organic/human than a generic bot copy. Purpose appears to be reassurance/endorsement (social proof) or replying to someone asking about when results appear. Fakeness is assessed low-to-moderate because short, positive comments can be fabricated, but this one contains detail and a small language imperfection that point to authenticity. Confidence is moderate because a single comment is a small sample; broader comment and account-level signals (comment diversity, timing, follower activity, other posts) would be needed to increase confidence. Overall, the comment is a positive signal for influencer advertising suitability but is insufficient alone to judge overall engagement quality; recommend reviewing more comments, like/comment ratios, follower authenticity, and comment timestamps before purchasing advertising or collaborations." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question/Inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks opinion and product recommendation; drives engagement by asking about a quick‑acting BTX (Botox-like) product, example: Korean product" } ], "interpretation": "Die vorliegende Kommentierung wirkt echt und organisch: informelle Sprache, keine Hashtags/Emojis/Links und kein offensichtlicher Werbeinhalt. Der Nutzer fragt nach Erfahrungen/Meinungen zu einem schnell wirkenden BTX-Produkt (als Beispiel ‚koreanisches‘ Produkt) — also eine produktbezogene Nachfrage, die Interesse an ästhetischer/Beauty‑Behandlung signalisiert. Bewertungseinschätzung: niedrige Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass der Kommentar gefälscht oder botgeneriert ist (Fakeness 10/100, Confidence 70/100), aber dies basiert auf nur einem Kommentar. Für die Werbefähigkeit: ein solcher Kommentar ist positiv, weil er echte Produktinteresse und Engagement zeigt — das ist attraktiv für Beauty-/Ästhetik‑Werbung. Allerdings sind Risiken zu beachten: es geht um medizinisch/ästhetische Eingriffe (Regulatorik, Heilmittelwerberegeln, mögliche Haftungsfragen, sensible Claims). Zudem ist die Datenbasis zu klein, um schlüssig Authentizität und Audience‑Qualität zu beurteilen. Empfehlung: Sampling von mehr Kommentaren (quantitativ und qualitativ), Prüfung von Reaktionsraten, Kommentatorprofilen (Follower‑Verhalten, Alter/Geografie), sowie Evaluation, ob beworbene Produkte/Claims regulatorisch zulässig sind, bevor Werbeplatz gebucht wird." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / information-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Directly asks why the influencer can still move their eyebrows after a brow lift/forehead procedure — seeking explanation or reassurance." }, { "type": "Personal experience / comparison", "count": 1, "purpose": "Shares the commenter’s own result (cannot move eyebrows after the procedure) and expresses a desire to retain movement — signals genuine personal concern and engagement." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as authentic: it uses specific medical/cosmetic terms (browlift, forehead), describes a personal outcome, and asks a targeted question rather than offering a generic compliment or spam. That specificity and the conversational tone make it unlikely to be bot-generated or fake (low fakeness score, reasonably high confidence). For advertising decisions, the comment is a positive signal because it indicates followers are interested in and knowledgeable about cosmetic procedures and engage with the creator on substantive topics. However, this analysis is based on one comment only — sample size is too small to generalize audience quality or engagement patterns. Recommended next steps before purchase: review a larger sample of recent comments (content diversity, frequency), overall engagement metrics (likes vs. comments, engagement rate), comment timing patterns, replies from the influencer (do they respond substantively), and follower authenticity checks (audience demographics, follower growth spikes). With more consistent similar comments and healthy engagement rates, the influencer would be a stronger candidate for cosmetic/medical advertising; with only the current evidence, proceed cautiously (moderate overall score and confidence)." }

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": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question / concern", "count": 1, "purpose": "User asking for advice about a possible side effect (sagging skin around the eye) after a glabellar/frown-line treatment." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided. It is a topical, specific question in German with a typo, which suggests a real person seeking medical/esthetic advice rather than a generic promotional or bot-style remark. Fakeness is therefore low (10/100) with reasonably high confidence (80/100). For advertising feasibility: this single, relevant comment is a small positive signal (shows audience interest in treatment-related content), but the sample is far too small to draw firm conclusions about audience authenticity or overall engagement quality. Overall score 40/100 reflects limited data — recommend retrieving the full comment set, checking for patterns (repeated text, timing, emoji-only replies), examining commenter profiles (age, follower counts, history), and calculating engagement ratios before deciding on ad purchase." }

Text: Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive endorsement of the creators (social proof), likely meant to show appreciation and strengthen rapport. Emoji use (🥰💓) increases perceived warmth and authenticity." } ], "interpretation": "The sole comment (German: \"Goldene Hände bei euch beiden, approved 🥰💓\" — \"Golden hands for both of you, approved\") is a short, positive compliment with affectionate emojis. With only one comment available, there is very limited signal to judge audience quality or engagement patterns. The language and emoji choice suggest a genuine fan or friendly acquaintance rather than a templated promotional bot. However, the sample size is too small to generalize; there is no evidence here of coordinated, spammy, or copy-paste comment behavior, but also no diversity of engagement (questions, meaningful discussion, repeat commenters, or critiques) that would strengthen confidence in an authentic, engaged audience. For advertising decisions I recommend gathering more comment data (volume, commenter account audits, timing, follower overlap, and sentiment spread) before committing; based on this single comment the channel looks potentially usable but insufficiently validated for a confident ad spend." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval; low-effort engagement intended to signal positive reaction and increase visible engagement. Provides little informational value about audience intent; can be posted by genuine followers or by low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: five 'fire' emojis. This is a low-information, high-visibility comment type that signals positive sentiment but does not indicate genuine interest, intent to purchase, or audience relevance. Emoji-only comments are common both among real followers (quick positive reactions) and among inorganic or paid-engagement services (easy-to-automate reactions), so the measured fakeness is moderate (40) with low confidence due to the tiny sample. For advertising decisions, this single emoji comment is not sufficient evidence of a valuable, engaged audience. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, commenter account profiles (follower counts, posting history, follower/following ratios), engagement rates over time, and conversion metrics. Without that, the post's comment signal is weak and I would not rely on it alone to approve ad spend." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji praise (heart emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction / affection. Low-information, low-effort engagement that signals sentiment but not purchase intent or detailed audience insight; could be from a genuine follower or a generic/bot account." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of three heart emojis is available. This indicates a positive sentiment but provides very little signal about authenticity, audience quality, or commercial intent. Short emoji comments are common from genuine fans but are also easy for engagement farms or bots to generate, so there is moderate uncertainty about fakeness (estimated 35/100). Given such sparse data, the advertising-feasibility assessment is tentative (45/100) with low confidence. To improve assessment, collect more comments and metadata: number of unique commenters, commenter follower counts, commenter account age, comment timing patterns, repetition of identical comments across posts, presence of generic phrases (e.g., 'Nice', 'Love'), like-to-comment ratios, and replies from the influencer. Also review the post's overall engagement rate (likes, saves, shares) and audience demographics before making a buying decision." }

Text: Was würde diese Behandlung im Set den kosten?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine question / purchase inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "seeking price information and indicating purchase interest" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: “Was würde diese Behandlung im Set den kosten?” (What would this treatment in the set cost?). The comment reads as a natural, context-specific question and likely comes from a real user expressing purchase intent. There are no typical signs of bot/fake behavior (generic praise, repeated emojis, irrelevant links, unnatural grammar patterns), so estimated fakeness is low (10/100) with moderate confidence. However, a single comment is an extremely small sample for influencer assessment: it shows some genuine interest but does not indicate overall engagement quality, audience authenticity, or conversion potential. For an advertising purchase decision, this sample alone is insufficient — request more data (total comments, likes, commenter profiles, comment timestamps, language distribution, repeated comment patterns) to better judge engagement and detect coordinated or fake activity." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive engagement (emoji + enthusiastic text)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show support/admiration; boosts perceived social proof and post sentiment." }, { "type": "Conversion intent / booking signal", "count": 1, "purpose": "Explicitly expresses intent to schedule a service/appointment — potential lead for the influencer." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is enthusiastic and actionable: the user uses an emoji, informal phrasing, and explicitly says they will book an appointment soon. That pattern (personal phrasing, specific intent) leans toward genuine engagement rather than a generic or bot-like reply. There are few typical signs of fake comments (no generic praise, no repeated phrases, not clearly promotional). However, assessment is limited by a single data point — you should check the commenter profile (follower status, past comments, activity), the distribution of similar comments on the post, and overall engagement patterns to raise confidence. For advertising feasibility: this comment is a positive signal (shows real interest/conversion potential), but one comment alone is insufficient evidence of broadly authentic, high-converting audience. Recommend further sampling of comments, reply rate, and audience profiling before a purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/affectionate engagement (short, emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses affection/positive attention toward the influencer; builds social proof and personal connection. Low commercial intent; likely meant to engage the poster rather than promote anything." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Bei dir fühlt man auch nichts 🥰💁🏻‍♀️\" is brief, uses affectionate emojis, and reads as a playful/personal interaction. The German phrasing is slightly odd (could be a small grammatical error or shorthand), which makes the exact sentiment ambiguous — but the emojis and tone lean positive rather than promotional. This is not a CTA, product endorsement, or clear bot-like generic phrase. With only one comment available there is insufficient data to judge community authenticity or engagement patterns; a single short positive comment is consistent with genuine follower interaction but could also be low-effort purchased engagement. Given the limited sample, fakeness is assessed as low-to-moderate (25/100) with moderate confidence. Overall suitability of the post for informing an advertising purchase is limited (score 45/100) because one ambiguous comment does not demonstrate reliable, diverse, or campaign-relevant engagement; confidence in that overall assessment is low (30/100). To improve the assessment, analyze a larger set of comments for repetition, timing, language patterns, account profiles, and ratio of meaningful comments to generic ones." }

Text: Botox in den trapezius…😳

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "speculation / surprise / concern", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise and draw attention to a possible cosmetic procedure (questions/flags a change in the influencer's appearance)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Botox in den trapezius…😳') reads as a genuine, context-specific reaction: short, informal, uses an emoji and references a specific anatomical area and procedure. This pattern is not typical of generic bot comments (which are usually one-word praise, repeated phrases, or links), so overall fakeness is low. The comment signals that at least some audience members notice and comment on the influencer's appearance and potential cosmetic interventions — this can mean engaged viewers but also indicates potential sensitivity or controversy around bodily procedures. For advertising decisions, this single comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or sentiment. Recommend: (1) collect a larger sample of comments, sentiment distribution, and reply behavior; (2) audit follower authenticity and engagement rates; (3) check comment diversity (questions, purchases, tagged friends) and rate of meaningful interactions. If the brand is sensitive to perceptions of naturalness/medical procedures, this kind of attention could be a risk; if the product aligns with beauty/cosmetic topics, it may be neutral or useful. Given limited data, the overall suitability for advertising is moderate (60) but with low confidence." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (😂)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; lightweight engagement signal without substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a plain emoji (laughing faces). This is a low-information, reactive engagement: it signals the commenter found the post amusing but provides no product feedback, intent to buy, or meaningful conversation. Such comments are commonly organic but can also be posted by low-effort bots or random accounts; with only one emoji it's impossible to conclusively determine authenticity. For influencer advertising decisions this comment contributes very little toward proving audience quality or conversion potential. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments, assess comment diversity (questions, personal stories, tagged friends), commenter account quality (profiles, activity), and engagement rates before relying on this influencer for ad spend." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter. Signals positive emotional reaction but provides no substantive feedback, intent to purchase, or endorsement value for advertisers." } ], "interpretation": "Dataset is extremely limited (single comment: \"😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only reactions are common among real followers and casual viewers, but they are also often produced by low-effort bot accounts or engagement-farm profiles; with one example it's not possible to reliably distinguish. The comment shows low informational value for an advertiser — it indicates a momentary positive reaction but gives no insight into audience interest, product fit, or purchase intent. Given the single emoji, I rate overall comment fakeness as low-to-moderate (25) but with low confidence (35) because sample size is too small. For advertising-feasibility assessment I give a cautious middling score (45) with modest confidence (40). Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, comment diversity (questions, product mentions, tagged friends), timestamp patterns, and the presence of repetitive or templated comments to make a reliable determination." }

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": 80, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Promotional / Branded jingle", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct advertisement of Zott Sahnejoghurt (copy/lyrics from a commercial jingle). Purpose is to promote the product and reinforce brand messaging rather than to provide organic user opinion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is verbatim advertising copy — a product jingle promoting Zott Sahnejoghurt. That pattern strongly suggests the comment is promotional in nature (posted by a brand account, a marketing partner, or an account copying official ad text) rather than organic user feedback. Because there is only this one comment and it is clearly branded, the apparent conversational quality and authentic user engagement around the post are low. For influencer-ad buying decisions this is a warning sign: a feed of branded or copy-paste comments indicates either paid/seeded promotion or low-quality audience interaction, both of which reduce the value of the audience for trust-driven conversions. Confidence is moderate because only the comment text is available (no commenter profile, timestamp, or additional comments to analyze). Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: review commenter account(s) for real follower/following ratios and history, sample a larger set of recent posts/comments, calculate engagement rate vs follower count, and check for patterns of repeated branded comments or bot-like activity." }

Text: Das ist beeindruckend 👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/admiration and provide social proof (short engagement to signal positivity)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Das ist beeindruckend 👏\". This is a short, generic positive reaction with an emoji — a common form of lightweight engagement. Such comments can be genuine (a real follower expressing admiration) but are also the type often produced by low-effort bots or engagement farms because they are non-specific and positive. Given the single example, there is insufficient context (no commenter profile, no comment patterns, no volume/timing, no comparison to likes) to confidently classify authenticity. Practical implication for advertising: this single generic comment provides weak evidence of high-quality, engaged audience — it demonstrates some positive sentiment but not meaningful, specific engagement or audience interest. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, timing patterns, and engagement rates (likes-to-followers, comment-to-followers) before making an ad-purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Observation with personal disclaimer", "count": 1, "purpose": "Points out a slogan/phrase on a Jägermeister bottle and simultaneously clarifies the commenter does not drink alcohol — a product mention plus personal stance that distances from endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is specific and context‑driven (referring to the text on a Jägermeister bottle) and includes a personal disclaimer (“I don't drink alcohol”), which reduces the likelihood it is a generic bot/promo message. Purpose appears to be to note a detail on the product and make a light personal remark rather than to promote the post or product. Fakeness is judged low (10/100) because the content is idiosyncratic and non‑promotional, though certainty is not maximal because this is only one data point. For advertising feasibility: this comment does not indicate an audience inclined to positively engage with alcohol promotion (the commenter explicitly disclaims drinking). With only one comment provided, the sample is insufficient to assess overall engagement quality — more comments, commenter profiles, like counts, and reply structure are needed. Recommendation: collect a larger comment sample (at least several dozen), check for repetitive/generic phrasing, commenter account authenticity, and engagement rates before deciding on ad purchase." }

Text: All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/compliment (short, emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval/support and serves as social proof; likely intended to praise the post and signal satisfaction." } ], "interpretation": "Comment (German: \"All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️\" — \"All the monthly celebrations really paid off\") is brief, positive and uses emojis. It functions as an endorsement/social-proof signal rather than a detailed testimonial or question. With only a single short comment there is low information content: the tone appears genuine but is generic enough that it could be a casual follower reaction or a low-effort placeholder comment. Given the single data point, I assess a low-to-moderate probability of being fake (score 25) but with only moderate confidence. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment alone is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, comment diversity), engagement rate vs. follower count, and timing patterns before purchasing ads or partnerships." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji + brief praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive reaction/enthusiasm; low-effort engagement to signal approval and increase visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it') is a very short, generic positive reaction composed of emojis and a brief praise. This pattern is common for genuine quick reactions but is also commonly generated by bots, engagement pods, or paid commenters because it requires little effort and no specific reference to the post content. With only one comment to examine, there is weak evidence of authentic, meaningful audience engagement. The generic nature increases the probability the comment is low-effort or inorganic (hence a moderate fakeness score), but confidence is limited because a single comment is an insufficient sample. For advertising purchase decisions, this single comment provides almost no reliable signal of audience quality or intent to convert. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history, profile pictures, language consistency), check like-to-comment ratios, comment timestamps for batching, and look for substantive comments or conversations. Without that broader analysis, treat engagement shown here as unreliable for justifying ad spend." }

Text: Was geht 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short casual/greeting with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Social engagement — informal greeting or reaction meant to show presence/affection; no product interest or meaningful feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Was geht 😂😂😂' (German: 'What's up') is a brief, informal, emoji-rich remark typical of a real follower casually interacting. It is low-information and does not indicate purchase intent, product interest, or detailed audience sentiment. The tone and language suggest a genuine human comment rather than a templated bot message, but with only one short comment available we cannot reliably assess overall comment authenticity or the influencer's engagement quality. For advertising feasibility this comment alone is weak evidence: it shows some audience interaction but not the kind of substantive engagement advertisers usually want (questions, personal stories, requests, purchase mentions, or tagged users). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for depth, diversity of commentators, temporal patterns, ratio of comments to followers, presence of repetitive phrasing (bot pattern), and whether comments include brand/product-specific engagement." }

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": 80, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Technical/Instructional (niche expertise)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide practical, domain-specific instructions and guidance (firefighting water supply deployment). Includes light humor/banter (emoji) to engage." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a technical, domain-specific instruction in German (mentions 'Unterflurhydrant', 'Verteiler', 'C‑Leitung', 'Leiterwand') and ends with a laughing emoji. Its specificity and use of correct terminology suggest a real person with knowledge of firefighting/emergency procedures rather than a bot or generic fan comment. It is not promotional and appears intended to advise or joke with the poster. Fakeness is assessed low (10) due to natural language, technical detail, and contextual relevance; confidence is moderate-high (80) because content strongly indicates authenticity. However, this assessment is limited by the extremely small sample (one comment). For an advertising-feasibility decision, a single genuine technical comment indicates at least some engaged, niche-following audience, but it is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or commercial responsiveness. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, bio), temporal patterns, and more posts to produce a robust overall influencer assessment." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "literary/poetic quote", "count": 1, "purpose": "expressive engagement — cultural/literary reference, not promotional; likely a genuine human reaction rather than bot/spam" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: a line from Goethe's 'Erlkönig' ('Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind? …'). This looks like a genuine, literary/poetic reaction rather than a marketing message or obvious bot text. Fakeness risk is low based on content, but the sample size is extremely small so confidence is limited. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment gives little positive signal: it indicates at least one engaged follower with cultural inclination, but it does not demonstrate product interest, call-to-action responses, or a sustained, diverse conversation. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments across multiple posts and check commenter profiles (age/activity/follower counts), timestamps, repetition patterns (identical comments), like-to-comment ratios, and reply chains before making a buying decision. If many comments are similarly poetic and from distinct credible accounts, that supports genuine engagement; if many are generic or duplicated, fakeness risk rises." }

Text: Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Supportive/Positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval and emotional validation of the content; serves as social proof and increases perceived engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛\" (\"That was anything but pointless 💛\"). It is short, specific, uses natural language and an emoji, and reads like a genuine supportive reaction rather than a boilerplate spam message. Based on that limited evidence, the comments do not appear obviously fake, so the fakeness score is low (15) but confidence is moderate (50%) because the sample size is extremely small. For advertising-feasibility: this single positive comment provides minimal signal about true audience quality or engagement — the overall score is low (30) with modest confidence (40%). Before buying advertising or partnering, request more data: full comment set, comment timestamps, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), like-to-follower ratio, and consistency of engagement across multiple posts. Also check for repeated phrasing across comments, sudden spikes in activity, and proportion of generic compliments vs. substantive replies to better judge authenticity and audience fit." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "skeptical-humorous", "count": 1, "purpose": "Playful skepticism about the video's authenticity (questions whether a teleprompter was used) and to engage/entertain other viewers." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a light, humorous challenge to the authenticity of the content rather than obvious spam or a bot message. It indicates audience engagement and some critical attitude, which can be healthy for perceived authenticity but also signals viewers notice production polish. Given only one comment, there is low statistical strength to judge the overall comment quality or prevalence of fake engagement. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetitive phrasing or promotional content, check commenter profile activity (real followers, history), measure comment-to-like ratio, and review sentiment distribution. Based on this one comment, risk of fake engagement appears low, but the dataset is too small to be confident about community authenticity or long-term influencer suitability." }

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": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine conversational / humorous / educational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Shares a niche joke/reference (Latin declension), signals shared knowledge and community engagement; adds personality to the thread." }, { "type": "Promotional / spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "No advertising, links, or product pushes present." }, { "type": "Bot / generic comments", "count": 0, "purpose": "No template-like or irrelevant generic praise that bots typically post." }, { "type": "Questions / requests", "count": 0, "purpose": "No information-seeking or call-to-action requests." }, { "type": "Compliments / praise", "count": 0, "purpose": "No direct compliments to the influencer or post." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears authentic and engaged: a humorous, niche reference to Latin declension (IYKYK) that indicates a real human with shared background or an in-group joke. There is no sign of promotional intent or bot-like behavior. For advertising feasibility, this is a small positive signal (real audience engagement and personality), but the sample is extremely limited — one comment cannot establish overall audience quality, engagement rate, or conversion potential. Recommend collecting a larger sample of comments, likes, reply threads, follower demographics, and post frequency before a buy decision. Current overall assessment: cautiously positive (60/100) with moderate confidence due to limited data." }

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": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "cryptic/quoted personal memory", "count": 1, "purpose": "Personal expression/quote — shows a memory or cryptic thought, not addressing the post or product; low commercial intent" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a mixed-language, grammatically unusual message that reads like a quoted line or a fragmented thought rather than a direct response to content or a question about a product. Possible origins: a genuine user sharing a long-held phrase or memory (German line translates to \"read sometime somewhere and for more than 30 years it has simply been in my head\"), poor machine translation, or a low-effort/bot comment. It contains no clear endorsement, question, or purchase intent and does not reference the influencer's content or any brand. Given the odd phrasing and lack of relevance, I rated the comment as moderately likely to be inauthentic or at least low-value engagement (fakeness 65/100, confidence 60/100). For advertising feasibility: this comment provides no evidence of an engaged, relevant audience. With only this type of comment visible, the post's comment quality appears weak and not useful for gauging conversion potential; overall suitability score 35/100 (confidence 55/100). Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, like/dislike ratios, commenter profiles (age, language, follower counts), and engagement patterns over multiple posts before making an advertising purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "nostalgic / humorous user comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express nostalgia and amusement about the content (memories of 90s commercials). Genuine personal reaction, engagement without promotional intent or call-to-action." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads naturally, references a specific memory ('90s commercials') and uses emoji and informal phrasing, which strongly suggests a real user rather than a bot or paid promotional comment. Fakeness likelihood is low (estimated 8/100) but confidence is not perfect because this is only one short comment. For influencer advertising feasibility, this comment is a positive indicator of authentic audience engagement in tone and relevance, but the sample size is far too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience quality or engagement. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, likes-to-followers ratio, comment diversity, timing patterns, and follower authenticity before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "request/engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "User expresses a quick, informal request/desire ('Einmal bitte Full Freeze') combined with emojis to show enthusiasm or playfulness — likely asking for a product/service variant or to try something featured in the post." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available. It appears natural (colloquial German, emoji use, no generic praise tokens or repeated phrases), so fakeness likelihood is low. The comment functions as light engagement and a direct request/interest in 'Full Freeze' (presumably a product, service, or option shown in the post). However, one comment is insufficient to judge overall audience authenticity, engagement quality, or conversion potential for advertising. For ad-buy decisions you need more data: number of unique commenters, comment variety, account profiles (real vs. bot), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and relevance of commenters to the target demographic. Given the limited sample, treat this as weak positive signal of interest but not a reliable basis for purchase decisions." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "sarcastic/negative personal anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "Mocking the influencer's (low) Botox use while boasting about own procedures; humorous ridicule, social signalling and engagement/trolling rather than promotion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is sarcastic and mocking, framed as a personal anecdote that brags about more extensive cosmetic procedures. It reads as organic (specific, context-aware, uses humor and social signalling) rather than generic bot/spam content, hence the low fakeness score. Purpose appears to be to ridicule and attract attention (engagement), possibly reflecting a segment of the audience that responds with ironic or hostile humor. For advertising feasibility this is a weak negative signal: a mocking audience fragment can indicate polarizing content and may pose reputational risk for brands—especially those in beauty/medical aesthetics—but one comment is insufficient to draw firm conclusions. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for sentiment distribution, repeat commenters, comment-to-like ratios, follower quality, and presence of generic promotional comments (typical bot signature)." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive emotion; lightweight engagement that adds social proof but provides no substantive feedback or interest signal for advertising" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment '😂' is an emoji reaction indicating amusement. Emoji-only comments are common, low-effort engagement that generally reflect momentary viewer amusement rather than intent to purchase or meaningful audience interest. With only one comment available, it's not possible to judge audience authenticity, sentiment distribution, or depth of engagement for advertising decisions. The low fakeness score reflects that a solitary laughing-emoji is more likely genuine than part of an organized fake-comment campaign, but confidence is limited due to the extremely small sample. Overall suitability for ad spend is low based on this evidence alone; you should request a larger sample of comments, engagement rate metrics (likes, saves, reach), follower quality (audience demographics, follower growth patterns), and examples of substantive comments before making a buying decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or quick engagement; low-effort signal of attention but not endorsement or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('😂😂😂') is available. Emoji-only comments are common and may be genuine lightweight engagement from real followers or generic bot-like responses; with one example it is not possible to reliably judge authenticity. The fakeness score is relatively low (30) but with low confidence because single, low-content comments provide little signal. For advertising decisions this comment is weak evidence of meaningful audience interest or intent. Recommend collecting more data before purchase: number and variety of comments, comment-to-like ratio, commenter profiles (real accounts vs new/empty), timing patterns, and repeats. If most comments are similarly low-effort emojis or generic short phrases, treat engagement as low quality and reduce confidence in influencer-driven conversions." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval or congratulations; lightweight engagement that signals a positive reaction but provides no substantive feedback or purchase intent. Can be posted by genuine followers or by accounts used to inflate engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single emoji-only comment (five laughing emojis and a raised-hands emoji) is available, which is a weak signal for audience quality. Emoji reactions are common and can be genuine casual responses, but they are also frequently used in low-effort bot/spam activity to boost visible engagement. Given the extremely limited sample, the fakeness estimate is tentative (moderately low fakeness likelihood) and confidence is low. For an advertising decision, these comments are inconclusive — they show some positive sentiment but no real endorsement, questions, or purchase intent. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter account quality (age, follower counts, profile pictures, posting history), look for repeated/generic comments across posts, compare comment-to-like ratio and engagement rates, and inspect timing patterns. Without that broader analysis, I would not rely on this single comment as evidence of a highly engaged, authentic audience." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort emotional response (amusement). Functions as lightweight engagement/social proof but provides no substantive feedback or endorsement; could be from a real follower or from an automated/generic account." } ], "interpretation": "There is only one comment provided: two laughing emojis (😂😂). That is a generic, low-information reaction. Such comments are common from genuine followers who quickly react, but they are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort engagement farms because emojis require no context and are reusable across posts. With a single emoji comment you cannot reliably assess audience quality or purchase feasibility for advertising. The moderate fakeness score reflects this ambiguity—leaning toward suspicious because emoji-only comments are a known marker of low-quality engagement, but confidence is limited by the extremely small sample.\n\nOverall assessment: poor signal for ad-buy decision. Emoji-only interaction indicates low conversational engagement and little demonstration of follower intent or interest in the creator's content. Recommended next steps before making any advertising decision: collect a larger sample of comments, compute comment-to-follower and like-to-follower ratios, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, profile photos, posting history), look for repetitive identical comments across multiple posts, check timing patterns (bursts consistent with bot activity), and evaluate presence of substantive comments/questions that demonstrate an engaged, brand-relevant audience. Based on the single emoji comment alone, I would not consider this sufficient evidence of a high-quality engaged audience." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; increases visible engagement but provides no purchase intent or demographic signal." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: three laughing emojis (😂😂😂). This is a low-information, low-effort engagement that indicates amusement but does not signal genuine endorsement or buying intent. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers as casual reactions, but they are also frequently used by bots or engagement farms to inflate metrics — with a single sample it is not possible to reliably distinguish. Given the limited data, the fakeness and overall suitability scores are conservative and have low-to-moderate confidence. Recommendation: do not base an advertising purchase decision on this single comment. Collect and analyze a larger comment set and commenter profiles (account age, follower counts and ratios, posting history, comment timing and repetition, language patterns), check overall engagement rate vs follower count, likes on comments, and presence of replies to form a reliable assessment." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (single emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/acknowledgement; low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction but provides little qualitative signal about audience authenticity or sentiment." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment consisting only of a laughing emoji (😂). This is a low-information, low-effort engagement type: it can be genuine (a follower reacting quickly) or synthetic (bot/generic commenter), and on its own provides weak evidence either way. I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood because emoji-only comments are commonly used by engagement-farming bots and also occur frequently among real users, but with only one instance the assessment is uncertain. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient to judge audience quality or intent to purchase; it suggests surface-level engagement but not meaningful interest. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments (length, variety, timing), check commenter account profiles for real-person signals (profile photo, history, follower counts, original posts), calculate engagement rates (likes/comments per follower) and the share of generic/emoji comments, and look for purchase-intent comments or questions. Based on the current single-comment sample, I would rate the post as low suitability for direct-response advertising until deeper audit data are available." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval and increase visible engagement; low-effort interaction without substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: two laughing emojis (\"😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are common and can be either genuine quick reactions or low-effort engagement posted by bots or engagement farms. With a single short emoji there is very little signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or buying intent. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji reactions are easy to fabricate but are also frequently authentic; confidence is low because the sample size is one.\n\nFor advertising feasibility this one comment is inconclusive. A neutral overall score reflects the lack of meaningful qualitative feedback and the uncertainty about audience authenticity. Before deciding on a purchase, collect more data: full comment set, distribution of comment types, commenter account quality (followers, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and recurring comment phrasing. Those will allow a more reliable fakeness assessment and ad-buy recommendation." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement that signals the content entertained the viewer but provides no substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"😂😂😂\". This is a short, non-verbal emoji reaction which indicates the post elicited amusement from at least one viewer. Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine, but they carry very low informational value for advertising decisions — they do not indicate intent to buy, demographic alignment, or depth of audience engagement. Because emoji comments are also frequently used by bots or low-effort engagement farms, there is a modest risk of inauthenticity (estimated fakeness score ~30). Confidence in that fakeness estimate is moderate-low because a single comment is insufficient evidence. Overall, based on this single comment, I would rate the post's suitability for advertising as low-to-moderate (overall score ~35) with low confidence: more data is required. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments (look for repeated messages, identical emojis, or copy-paste patterns), check comment timing, compare engagement rate (likes and comments) to follower count, examine follower authenticity, and review comment language/content diversity to better judge audience quality before purchasing ads." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "quick expression of amusement/endorsement—low-effort engagement to signal approval or amusement" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment (😂) is available. This is a low-effort emoji reaction that provides almost no evaluative content or audience insight. Such comments are common from real followers but are also easily produced by bots or coordinated engagement, so authenticity is uncertain (hence a moderate-low fakeness score). For advertising feasibility the comment quality is weak: it does not indicate meaningful interest, intent to buy, or a conversation-driving community. Recommendation: obtain more comments and full comment stream, timestamp patterns, commenter account profiles, like-to-follower ratios and historical engagement before deciding to purchase ad space. Current evidence is insufficient to recommend placing ads based on comment quality alone." }

Text: Ach 😆… Das kenne ich. 😆

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "relatable/empathetic reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express personal recognition or shared experience; mild positive engagement to validate the post and signal affinity." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"Ach 😆… Das kenne ich. 😆\" is a casual, colloquial German reaction that reads as authentic—short text plus emojis indicating amusement and personal recognition. It functions primarily to show empathy/relatability and to lightly engage with the post. With only one comment provided, there's insufficient evidence to judge overall comment quality or detect coordinated/fake behavior; the content is not a generic marketing phrase, does not include links/tags/repeated patterns, and therefore has a low likelihood of being fake. For advertising feasibility this single organic-seeming comment is a small positive signal but far from decisive — you need broader metrics (total comments, like-to-comment ratio, comment diversity, follower authenticity, timing patterns, recurring commenters) before making a purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Correction / Fact-check with humorous engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Points out an apparent factual/timing error in the post while adding a light, humorous reaction (emoji). Signals an attentive, real follower checking content accuracy." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a likely genuine user reaction: it references a personal fact ('Meine Tochter ist 2017 geboren'), highlights an inconsistency (2007 vs 2017) and uses a laughing emoji, which is typical of organic engagement. There are no signs of bot-like behavior (no generic praise, emojis-only, repeated phrases, or solicitation). However, this is a very small sample (one comment), so conclusions are limited. For advertising feasibility: the comment quality suggests authentic followers who read content carefully, which is positive. But the very low comment volume limits confidence in overall audience engagement and reach. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent posts (comment volume, reply depth, linguistic variety), compare likes-to-followers ratio, check for repeated commenter accounts, and review follower growth patterns before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👏1989

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction and increase visible engagement; low informational value for sentiment beyond 'likes' or 'approval'." }, { "type": "ambiguous textual token (numeric)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Contains '1989' which may be a birth year, an inside reference, a signature, or unrelated token — adds ambiguity but could indicate a real person rather than a templated bot message." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (seven laughing emojis, a clapping emoji, and '1989') is a short, emotion-driven reaction that signals positive/amused engagement but provides almost no substantive information. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort bots or engagement farms; the appended numeric token ('1989') slightly reduces the likelihood of a purely templated bot reply because it appears personal or contextual, but it could also be a predictable pattern used by fake accounts. Given only one comment to evaluate, the dataset is too small to draw reliable conclusions about the influencer's overall audience quality. For advertising decisions this comment alone is weak evidence: it shows sentiment is positive but not the kind of audience interaction that indicates purchase intent (no questions, no product references, no discussion). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (diversity of commenters, comment length, presence of questions or product mentions), check commenter profiles for follower counts, activity patterns, account age, and timing of comments to detect bot-like bursts. Only with that broader data can you reach a confident assessment of advertising feasibility." }

Text: Liebe deine Videos ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive praise / compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and support for the creator’s content (emotional endorsement). Short, heart-emoji adds warmth; functions as social proof and encouragement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided — \"Liebe deine Videos ❤️\" — is a brief, positive endorsement in German (\"Love your videos\"). As a standalone data point it most likely represents genuine fan praise or lightweight supportive engagement rather than a targeted promotional message. However, with only one comment available the assessment is highly limited. The comment is generic and low-effort (could be posted by a casual follower, but similar phrasing can also appear in bot or engagement-farm activity), which is why fakeness is low-to-moderate (20) but confidence is low (35). For advertising feasibility the signal from this single comment is weak: it shows at least some positive audience sentiment but tells us nothing about comment diversity, depth of engagement, audience authenticity, conversion potential, or overall engagement rate. Therefore the overall suitability score is modest (35) with low confidence (30). Recommended next steps: collect more comments (volume, timestamps, language mix), measure likes vs follower count, check commenter profiles for authenticity (recent activity, follower counts, profile pictures), look for repeated/formulaic comments, and evaluate comment-to-like ratio and comment content variety before making an ad-buy decision." }

Text: Mir gehts genau so……….

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "empathetic/personal", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express solidarity or shared feeling with the post (emotional support/relatability). Not promotional or call-to-action." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Mir gehts genau so……….' (German: 'I feel the same way') is a short, emotionally supportive reply. The style (informal, repeated punctuation) and content are consistent with a genuine human response rather than a templated or promotional bot message. Fakeness risk is low for this comment specifically. However, one short empathetic comment provides very limited signal about the influencer's audience quality or ad effectiveness. It shows some emotional resonance but not engagement depth (no question, no mention of product/service, no conversion intent). For an advertising purchase decision, this isolated data point is insufficient: you should review a larger sample of comments for diversity (questions, tagged friends, purchase mentions), commenter account credibility, like-to-comment ratio, comment timestamps, and overall engagement trends across multiple posts before concluding. Recommended next steps: sample 50–100 recent comments, check commenter profiles for real accounts vs. throwaway/bot patterns, inspect follower growth history and post reach metrics." }

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": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal anecdote / humorous engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "express relatability and humor, signal genuine engagement (liking/commenting to connect), not promotional" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads as a natural, personal anecdote with a laugh emoji and no generic praise or call-to-action; it likely comes from a real follower rather than a bot or purchased comment. It provides positive but low-value signal for advertising decisions because it lacks product mention, buying intent, or substantive discussion. Confidence in fakeness assessment is moderate-high because linguistic detail and context-specific memory (20 years with a driver's license) are hard to fake at scale, but the sample size is extremely small. Overall feasibility for an ad buy remains uncertain — the comment indicates some genuine engagement but is insufficient evidence of an active, conversion-oriented audience. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments (varied posts, repeated commenters), engagement rates (likes/comments per follower), audience demographics, and look for patterns of generic or repeated comments to make a reliable advertising decision." }

Text: Marmeladenglasmoment so real

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "relatable/affirmation reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses that the content felt relatable/true to the commenter (emotional validation). Short, organic-sounding reaction rather than promotional or generic praise." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment — \"Marmeladenglasmoment so real\" (roughly: \"jam-jar moment, so real\") reads as a short, colloquial, and context-specific reaction. It likely signals genuine engagement: the commenter is reacting with recognition/relatability rather than leaving a generic compliment or promotional line. There are no obvious signs of automation (no generic phrases like \"nice pic\" repeated, no hashtags, no emoji spam), but the assessment is very limited by sample size. With only one comment, overall conclusions about the comment authenticity distribution or the influencer's audience quality are weak. For advertising decisions, this single authentic-seeming comment is a small positive signal but insufficient alone. Recommend requesting a larger sample of recent comments, overall engagement rate, follower quality metrics (audience demographics, follower growth history), and checks for repeated phrasing or bot-like accounts before purchasing ads." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement/approval; low informational value — primarily a lightweight engagement signal rather than a substantive endorsement or question." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is an emoji-only response (\"😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are common from real followers as quick reactions, but they are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts, engagement pods, or automated/comment-farming behavior. With just this item there is insufficient evidence of meaningful or authentic audience interest: no topical conversation, no questions, no personal anecdotes, and no purchase intent signals. For advertising feasibility this comment provides weak positive engagement (shows attention/amusement) but little actionable or trust-building interaction. Recommendation: gather more comments, compare comment-to-like ratios, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history) and look for substantive comments or repeated pattern of emoji-only replies before making a buy decision." }

Text: Hylaron

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word / ambiguous", "count": 1, "purpose": "likely spam/bot or attention-fishing; could also be an off-post personal name/handle mention. Ambiguous without context." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment provided: \"Hylaron\". This is a single-word, context-free entry that is typical of low-quality engagement (bots, spam accounts leaving one-word tokens, or test/comments copying a username). Given the absence of surrounding comments, repetition, author account info, timestamps, or other signals, the comment leans toward being inauthentic but cannot be confirmed. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single ambiguous comment is weak evidence of genuine community engagement. Recommend analysing a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, checking commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), looking for repeat identical comments, comment timing patterns, and ratio of meaningful comments to one-word/emoji replies before making a buy decision." }

Text: *Ehemann der Schwägerin genauso 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal humor / relational remark", "count": 1, "purpose": "social engagement — making a humorous, personal comparison referencing people related to the post (rapport-building, joking)" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment reads as a casual, conversational joke in German ('Ehemann der Schwägerin genauso 😂' — 'the sister-in-law's husband the same 😂'). It appears organic, non-promotional, and directed at the content/people in the post rather than marketing. With only one short, context-dependent comment there is minimal evidence of broad, engaged audience or inorganic amplification. For advertising feasibility this single-item sample is weak: it suggests authentic micro-engagement but provides no signal about reach, sentiment trends, brand receptivity, or prevalence of fake/paid comments. Recommendation: gather a larger sample of comments, likes, commenter profiles, timing patterns, and follower metrics before making an ad-buy decision." }

Text: Nh anstatt ne 😱

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short reaction / emoji with typo/abbreviation", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise or immediate emotional reaction (low-effort engagement). Not promotional, no call-to-action, and unclear semantic content due to possible typo or abbreviation." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"Nh anstatt ne 😱\". This appears to be a brief, low-effort reaction using an emoji and a short text fragment. The phrase looks like German ('anstatt' = 'instead of'), with 'Nh' likely a typo or shorthand for something the commenter and community understand; the emoji indicates surprise/shock. There is no clear sign of promotion, affiliate language, repeated phrasing, or bot-like patterns in this single comment, so it likely is genuine but provides very low signal about audience quality.\n\nGiven the extremely small sample (one ambiguous comment), the fakeness rating is low (15) but with only moderate confidence (60%) because short/ambiguous comments can be produced by bots or by real users. The overall assessment for advertising feasibility is limited: this single comment neither supports nor strongly undermines the influencer's suitability for advertising. I rated overall 45 with low confidence (35%) to reflect insufficient data. \n\nRecommended next steps before purchasing advertising: collect and analyze a larger set of comments (volume, variety, timestamps), check commenter accounts for authenticity (profiles, follower counts, engagement patterns), examine like-to-comment ratios, look for repetitive language or identical emojis across comments (bot indicators), and review follower growth history and past sponsored-post performance. These will provide a reliable basis for a purchase decision." }

Text: Vermissung

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short foreign-language single-word comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "ambiguous — likely low-effort engagement (emotional expression such as 'I miss [you]' or a single-word reaction) or automated/irrelevant bot comment" } ], "interpretation": "Dataset is a single comment: 'Vermissung' (German-rooted word meaning roughly 'missing' or similar). With only one, isolated, one-word foreign-language comment there is high uncertainty. Possible explanations: (a) genuine low-effort follower expressing emotion, (b) mistyped word or language mix, or (c) automated/low-quality engagement from a bot or inorganic account. There is no surrounding context (no likes on the comment, no replies, no additional comments or metadata), so assessment is weak. Given the ambiguity and minimal signal, the comment leans slightly toward suspicious/low-effort (hence a moderate fakeness score) but confidence is low. For advertising feasibility, this single comment provides almost no evidence of an engaged, authentic audience — overall assessment low. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles (age, language consistency, follower counts, posting history), look at overall engagement rate, and examine like-to-comment ratios before making an advertising decision." }

Text: Bauchbewohner

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine/personal", "count": 1, "purpose": "short, affectionate/acknowledgement comment (German: 'Bauchbewohner' — likely referencing a baby in the belly / pregnancy). Appears to be a brief follower reaction rather than promotional content." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single one-word comment ('Bauchbewohner') is available. That comment most plausibly reads as a genuine, informal follower reaction—probably referencing pregnancy or an unborn baby—rather than an obvious bot or promotional message. Given the extremely small sample size there is little evidence either for or against comment manipulation, so fakeness risk is low-to-moderate (score 15) but the confidence is limited (45). For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient to judge audience quality; overall suitability is low-to-moderate (score 30) with low confidence (35). Recommended next steps before any ad buy: collect more comments (volume and diversity), inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (age, follower counts, posting history), check like:comment ratio and timing patterns, evaluate overall engagement rate and audience demographics, and search for repeating comment text or accounts indicative of bots. Only after those checks can a reliable recommendation be made." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine inquiry / curiosity", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks clarification / expresses unfamiliarity with the term 'Marmeladenglasmoment' (engagement that invites explanation)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ich hab noch nie Marmeladenglasmoment gehört und kann mir nix darunter vorstellen 🙈') reads as authentic user curiosity: it admits unfamiliarity with a term and uses an emoji that fits a natural reaction. It is not a promotional, generic praise, or spammy bot-style message. Fakeness is therefore low. However, this is only one comment — insufficient sample to assess overall comment quality or typical audience behavior. For advertising decisions: the comment is a mild positive signal (real engagement and opportunity to educate the audience), but volume and diversity of engagement are lacking. Recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, checking like-to-follower ratio, comment diversity (questions vs. praise), and past campaign performance before committing budget. Current overall suitability for ad purchase is moderate-low (45/100) with moderate confidence due to limited data." }

Text: In Hamburg: Kohldampf. 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/location-based personal comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Engagement and personal expression — a lighthearted, local-reference remark (joke about being hungry in Hamburg) intended to react to the post and show relatability." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment ('In Hamburg: Kohldampf. 😂') reads as organic and conversational: a local, humorous reaction rather than promotion or generic praise. It likely comes from a real follower or someone familiar with the location/joke. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or community health; however, this particular comment has a low likelihood of being fake. For advertising-feasibility decisions, more comments (variety, volume, conversational threads, question-and-answer, timing) and other engagement metrics (likes, follower quality) are needed. Based on this lone comment, treat engagement as weak signal — slightly positive for authenticity but not sufficient alone to justify spend." }

Text: Schwiemu 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short colloquial reaction with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter and social bonding (likely an inside joke or friendly remark)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Schwiemu 😂😂😂\" is a short, informal German/dialect remark (likely shorthand for 'Schwiegermutter' or a nickname) followed by laughing emojis. It reads as a genuine, personal reaction rather than a promotional, generic, or bot-like message. Purpose appears to be humor/banter and social connection — probably from a follower, friend or someone familiar with the poster. However, with only one comment provided there is extremely limited signal about overall audience quality, engagement depth, or commercial intent. No signs of spam, solicitation, or rehearsed template language that typically indicate fake comments. For advertising feasibility: this single comment suggests natural, human interaction but gives no evidence of reach, conversion potential, or broad authentic engagement. Recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, engagement rates (likes/comments per follower), and comment timing to make a reliable ad-purchase decision." }

Text: Mein Männe/Menne 😱

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal/affectionate", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express affection/surprise (likely a friend/follower/partner reacting positively)" } ], "interpretation": "Single short German comment \"Mein Männe/Menne 😱\" reads as an affectionate/surprised reaction rather than spam or promotional content. There are no telltale bot signs (repeated generic praise, links, emoji spam, or irrelevant hashtags). The misspelling could be casual/typo, dialectal, or a keyboard issue — not strong evidence of fakery. However, assessment is low-confidence because this is only one comment; broader conclusions about audience authenticity or ad suitability require more data (number of unique commenters, commenter account quality, like-to-comment ratio, comment diversity, timing patterns). Recommendation: review a larger sample of recent comments and commenter profiles before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: Warum Sculptra?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question/inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Follower asking why the influencer used Sculptra — seeks information/justification and may indicate interest or mild skepticism." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('Warum Sculptra?') is available. It reads as a natural, topic-specific question in German and likely comes from an engaged follower curious about the treatment choice. This suggests genuine topical engagement (audience aware of cosmetic procedures), not a generic praise or spam message. Given the very small sample size, there is low confidence in extrapolating overall audience authenticity or sentiment. For advertising decisions: the comment shows relevant audience interest for cosmetic brands, but one comment is insufficient to judge engagement depth, authenticity at scale, or conversion potential. Recommend obtaining full comment set, like counts, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. bots), comment-to-follower ratio, and sentiment distribution before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Göttergatte /GöGa

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal / familiar shorthand", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short, colloquial reference to a spouse ('Göttergatte' / 'GöGa') — likely a personal or inside-joke style remark indicating familiarity or playful address; low informational/value for brand signals." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a German colloquialism meaning 'hubby' (Göttergatte) or its abbreviation (GöGa). It reads as a short, personal/familiar remark rather than spam, promotion, or a bot-like template. There is no explicit brand engagement, call-to-action, or topical discussion. Given only one short comment, there is very limited evidence about the audience quality or authenticity overall. The low fakeness score reflects that this comment does not show typical fake/bot characteristics (repetitive copy, generic praise, emojis-only, links, or obvious farmed-comment patterns). However, the sample size is tiny — you cannot draw reliable conclusions about the influencer's comment authenticity or suitability for advertising from this alone. Recommended next steps before purchase: review a larger sample of recent comments (variety, timing, account types), inspect commenter profiles for real follower signals, check engagement rate relative to follower count, and look for patterns of inorganic activity (many identical comments, suspicious accounts, sudden spikes)." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "reaction/conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "express surprise and amusement; propose a playful alternate term ('BauchMama'); light engagement that signals a real, conversational follower rather than promotional activity" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears organic and conversational (German, colloquial phrasing, emojis, context-specific remark). There are no clear markers of bot-like behavior (repetitive structure, generic praise, spammy links, emoji-only). As a standalone data point it provides low signal for commercial intent or strong audience enthusiasm for a product placement — it reflects mild engagement and personality-driven interaction. For an advertising purchase decision this comment is mildly positive but insufficient: gather more comments, examine like-to-comment ratios, follower authenticity, comment diversity, and whether comments show purchase intent or brand recall before deciding." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical/observational", "count": 1, "purpose": "express skepticism about a current Instagram trend and engage in discussion/critique" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a mild critique/observation about a trending post format ('Sorry, I lied') and reads as an organic user reaction rather than promotional or bot-like content. It uses contextual language and an emoji, contains a specific opinion (trend is misleading; it presents 'revelations' rather than outright lying) and lacks generic praise, links, or marketing language—factors that lower the likelihood of being fake. Purposes: to voice skepticism, invite agreement or discussion, and signal audience awareness of content tactics. For influencer-advertising feasibility: this kind of comment suggests an engaged but potentially skeptical audience; that can be positive if the influencer's audience values authenticity, but it may also mean the audience is critical of sensational hooks. Assessment confidence is limited because analysis is based on a single comment—recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments, engagement rates (likes/replies), follower authenticity metrics, and content history before deciding on ad purchase." }

Text: 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (😍)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive reaction/approval. Lightweight engagement that signals liking but gives no detail or intent to purchase; can be genuine follower response or generic/bot-produced." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji (heart-eyes) — a low-effort positive engagement. Such comments increase visible engagement but provide no substantive social proof (no product-specific feedback, no questions, no tagging). Because emoji-only comments are commonly left by both casual followers and automated accounts, there is a moderate probability of inauthenticity (fakeness score 45). However confidence is limited due to the extremely small sample size (one comment). For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment alone is weak evidence of an engaged, purchase-intent audience. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments and commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, comment diversity, repetition patterns, timing) and combining with other metrics (likes, saves, reach, follower authenticity checks) before purchasing ad placements or partnerships." }

Text: 🥹❄️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express emotion/support/affection with no substantive content — signals positive sentiment but provides low informational or purchase-intent value." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided (\"🥹❄️❤️\") is an emoji-only reaction that conveys positive emotion (e.g., affection, 'cute', a reference to cold/winter context) but contains no substantive feedback, question, or endorsement. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort bots or engagement farms; with a single sample it is not possible to reliably distinguish. Given the minimal dataset, the fakeness estimate is moderate (some risk that such low-effort comments are automated), and the usefulness of the comment for assessing influencer advertising suitability is low. For a reliable advertising-purchase decision you should analyze a larger set of comments and signals: number of comments per post, ratio of meaningful comments to emoji/short replies, commenter account quality (age, followers, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, story view counts, saves/shares, and use automated bot-detection tools. Based on this single comment, I rate the post's comment-quality and trustworthiness as low (overall score 30/100) with low confidence due to the extremely limited sample." }

Text: ❄️☃️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive/seasonal reaction (affection/approval) and low-effort engagement to the post; increases visible engagement but conveys little actionable sentiment." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists solely of three emojis (❄️☃️❤️). This is a lightweight, positive, seasonal reaction likely intended to show appreciation or match the post's winter theme. Emoji-only comments have low informational value: they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers or low-effort outputs from bots/engagement pods. Given the minimal sample size, there is moderate uncertainty; the comment does indicate some audience engagement but does not demonstrate deep interest, detailed praise, or purchase intent. For advertising purchase decisions, this single emoji comment should not be taken as strong evidence of authentic, high-quality engagement — you should request a larger sample of comments, engagement rates, follower authenticity metrics, and audience demographics before proceeding." }

Text: ❄️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort engagement / expression of mood or appreciation (non-verbal). Boosts superficial engagement metrics but provides little meaningful social proof or purchase intent signal." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short emoji (❄️) is present. Short emoji comments are common in organic conversations but are also frequently produced by low-effort engagement (real followers, casual viewers, or automated/bought services). Because the comment contains no text, no account metadata, no pattern of similar comments, and no contextual signal (e.g., questions, tagging, product mentions), the evidence is weak. I assign a moderate fakeness risk (40/100) with low confidence (30/100) because short emoji comments are ambiguous — they can be legitimate or manufactured and cannot be reliably classified without more data. Overall, the comment quality is low for advertising evaluation: it provides minimal social proof and little indication of audience interest or purchasing intent, so I give an overall suitability score of 40/100 with moderate-low confidence (35/100). Recommendation: before buying advertising or partnerships, audit a larger sample of comments, examine commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts), check for repeated identical comments across posts, review engagement rates (likes, saves, shares), and verify audience demographics to better assess authenticity and ad potential." }

Text: Man muss Prioritäten setzen 💉😂👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/sarcastic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Entertain/engage with the post; show lighthearted reaction and social approval (uses emojis to convey tone)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Man muss Prioritäten setzen 💉😂👍\" (\"You have to set priorities\") with syringe, laughing and thumbs-up emojis. The tone is playful/sarcastic rather than informative or promotional. It appears to be a genuine follower reaction: language is natural, contextually coherent and uses expressive emojis, which reduces likelihood of being a generic bot reply. The syringe emoji could reference medical treatment, vaccination, or be used jokingly — context from the post is needed for exact meaning. With only one comment, sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the audience as a whole. For advertising feasibility: the comment shows some authentic engagement and an audience that reacts playfully, but it does not demonstrate topical interest in a product, purchase intent, or influencer-driven advocacy. Overall feasibility is moderate (55) given the limited evidence; recommendation is to review a larger sample of comments, likes, follower demographics, and comment-to-like ratio before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter; low-effort engagement providing social proof but minimal informational value about audience intent or purchase interest." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of repeated laughing emojis is available. This is a low-information, low-effort reaction: it signals some engagement but does not indicate meaningful interest in the content or product. Such comments can be posted by genuine followers or by bots/engagement farms; given the lack of surrounding context (user account details, timing, likes on the comment, variety of comments, replies), the fakeness assessment is uncertain (moderate likelihood of inorganic activity but not definitive). For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment alone is insufficient evidence of a valuable, authentic audience. Recommended next steps: inspect many more comments for conversational depth and diversity, check commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), analyze comment timing patterns, look at overall engagement rate (likes, saves, views) versus follower count, and check for frequent short/generic comments (emojis, single words) which raise red flags for inauthentic engagement." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Enthusiastic / Positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise and emotional support for the post (encouragement, approval)." }, { "type": "Interest / Conversion inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks 'when can I start?' — indicates intent to participate, purchase, or sign up (lead-like behavior)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is short, informal German with multiple emojis and a direct question, showing high enthusiasm and an apparent willingness to engage with whatever the post offers. These features (natural phrasing, punctuation, mixed emojis, specific question) lean toward a genuine user rather than an automated/bot reply, so fakeness is low (estimated 10/100) but not certain given only one sample. For advertising decisions: this comment is a positive signal — it suggests at least one follower is ready to take action — but it is insufficient on its own to conclude audience quality. Recommend examining a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), comment diversity, like-to-comment ratios, and temporal patterns before committing to ad spend." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Surface-level positive engagement (affection/approval). Low-effort like/boost to engagement metrics; not informative about intent or purchase interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is six heart emojis — a generic, low-effort positive reaction. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also used by bots, keyboard spam, or engagement pods to inflate visible engagement. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient signal to determine authenticity confidently. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji-only comments are slightly more likely to be non-informative or automated, but confidence is low due to the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility, this comment adds minimal value: it signals some positive sentiment but provides no evidence of audience quality, intent to engage with branded content, or meaningful conversation. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (variety, specificity, timestamps), check commenter profiles (follower counts, bios, post history), compare likes-to-comments ratio, and look for diverse, substantive comments and conversions before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval; low informational content. Functions primarily as lightweight engagement (social validation) rather than substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment consisting of three laughing emojis (😂😂😂) is available. This is a common, low-effort engagement type that can come from real followers, casual viewers, or automated/bot accounts. Because it contains no context, purchase intent signal, or conversation, it provides minimal evidence of meaningful audience interest or authentic community engagement. I assessed moderate fakeness risk (45/100) because emoji-only comments are frequently used by low-effort real users but are also typical of inorganic engagement strategies; confidence is limited (40/100) due to the extremely small sample size. Overall suitability for advertising is low–moderate (35/100) with low confidence (35/100): the post shows some surface-level engagement but lacks informative, targeted, or sustained comments that advertisers rely on to judge real audience connection. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), check engagement patterns across multiple posts, and analyze timing and diversity of comments to better judge authenticity and ad-fit." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji/reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement or lightweight positive engagement; signals presence but conveys no substantive feedback or purchase intent" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short emoji (\"😂😂😂\") is available, which gives extremely limited insight. Emoji reactions are low-effort engagement and can come from genuine followers, casual viewers, or from inorganic sources (bots/engagement pods). There is no comment content that indicates purchase intent, product feedback, or meaningful audience sentiment. Given the tiny sample, authenticity and audience quality cannot be reliably assessed. For an advertising decision, this data is insufficient — analyze a larger set of comments, like counts relative to follower count, diversity of comment types (questions, testimonials), commenter account quality (profiles, activity), and temporal patterns to better detect fake/inflated engagement." }

Text: GaLiGrü 💗

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Supportive / affectionate (short text + emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal support/affection and contributes to visible engagement; not product- or information-focused and provides little signal about genuine audience interest." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('GaLiGrü 💗') is available, which appears to be a personal/affectionate remark (nickname or shout-out) with an emoji. Such comments are commonly left by real followers or close acquaintances and tend to have low informational value for assessing audience interest or purchase intent. Given the brevity and informal nature, there is a modest chance it could be automated or inorganic (e.g., a bot or coordinated account) but nothing in the text strongly indicates fakery. Confidence is limited because one comment is insufficient to generalize about the overall comment quality or authenticity. For an advertising-purchase decision, this sample is inadequate. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments (volume, variety, language patterns), check commenter profiles for real-looking bios, avatars, follower counts and activity, inspect timing patterns (bursts of comments), compare like-to-comment ratios, and look for repeated phrases/handles across posts. Based on the current single-comment sample, do not use this post alone to make an ad-buy decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter; low-effort engagement that can serve as social proof but provides no substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a sequence of laughing emojis. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort accounts; with a single sample it's impossible to reliably label it as honest or fake. For influencer ad-feasibility this kind of comment is low value — it signals engagement volume but not meaningful audience connection or intent. Given the limited data, treat this as weak evidence: if the post's comments are mostly emoji-only or repetitive, that would lower the influencer's value for conversions. Recommended next steps before buying ads: review a larger sample of recent comments for conversational or specific praise, check commenter account quality (real profiles vs. bot-looking), measure comment-to-like and comment-to-follower ratios, and inspect timing/repetition patterns to detect coordinated or purchased engagement." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive praise / fan comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and emotional support; act as social proof to other viewers" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is short, highly positive and emoji-heavy (laughing and hearts) and reads like an enthusiastic fan or a friend: “das BESTE Team aller Zeiten” (the best team ever). As a standalone datapoint it indicates positive sentiment and high emotional engagement but provides almost no information about audience quality or authenticity. The low fakeness score reflects that the phrasing and emoji use are consistent with genuine fan engagement; however, without context (commenter profile, follower count, frequency of similarly worded comments, timing, likes on the comment, and the distribution of other comments) there is meaningful uncertainty — fake or coordinated comments can mimic this style. For advertising decisions you should not rely on this single comment. Recommended next checks: inspect the commenter’s account (age, followers, posting history), look for many near-duplicate comments on this and other posts, measure comment diversity and timing patterns, check overall engagement rate and audience demographics, and verify whether comments receive authentic replies. If the post’s other comments and metrics also show organic diversity and relevant audience, the positive sentiment here supports consideration for ads; if many comments are similarly short and repetitive or from low-quality accounts, treat engagement as potentially inauthentic and reduce investment." }

Text: Überzeugt😜

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction (single word + emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/endorsement and basic engagement; signals the commenter is positively disposed but provides no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Überzeugt😜' is a brief, positive, and ambiguous reaction. It likely indicates approval or that the poster has convinced the commenter, but it provides no product-specific information, testimonial, or call-to-action. Such short comments are consistent with genuine micro-engagement from followers but are also the kind of low-effort response produced by bots or paid commenters. With only one comment available, any judgment is highly uncertain. For advertising-buy decisions you should not rely on this comment alone: gather more comments, analyze overall engagement rate (likes, saves, replies), look for detailed praise or purchase intent, and inspect commenter profiles for authenticity before concluding influencer suitability." }

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": 55, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal anecdote / applicant interest", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses genuine interest in applying (humorous tone), signals attraction to the brand/recruitment opportunity and relatability" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads as an individual, context-specific reaction: the commenter jokes about changing careers to become an MFA (medical/medical‑administrative assistant) in order to apply, ending with a laughing emoji. Linguistic detail (specific job title) and the self-deprecating/humorous phrasing suggest an authentic human reply rather than a generic bot or paid compliment. There are no obvious bot signals (repeated phrases, irrelevant hashtags, link spam) in this sample. However, this is only one comment — it cannot be extrapolated to the whole audience or used alone to judge engagement authenticity. For an advertising decision, request a larger sample of comments, check comment diversity and timing patterns, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), and compare comment-to-like ratios. Based on this single comment, the engagement appears genuine but the evidence is limited; therefore assign a moderate overall suitability score for advertising pending further data." }

Text: LG hat mich gekillt 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emotional reaction (humour/positive engagement, possible brand mention)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter and engage with the post; may reference 'LG' (ambiguous: could be the brand LG or shorthand like 'Liebe Grüße'), signalling a spontaneous, informal reaction rather than promotional intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'LG hat mich gekillt 😂😂😂😂' reads as a genuine, informal amused reaction — colloquial phrasing plus multiple emojis reduce the likelihood of a generic bot copy-paste. There is slight ambiguity because 'LG' could refer to a brand (which would be a brand mention) or to a common abbreviation, but nothing here strongly indicates fake engagement. However, one comment is an extremely small sample: you cannot assess overall comment quality, audience authenticity, or engagement patterns from this alone. For advertising decisions, request more data: total comments, distribution of comment types, commenter account age and follower counts, repetition of phrases, timestamps, likes on comments, and comparison to follower count and typical engagement rates. Based on this single comment, perceived fakeness is low (15/100) but the confidence in broader conclusions is limited; overall suitability for ad purchase is therefore low-to-moderate (35/100) with modest confidence." }

Text: Ihr habt eine DM ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Direct message notification", "count": 1, "purpose": "Notify the account that the commenter has sent a private DM and prompt the account to check/respond; often used for private inquiries, collaboration pitches, or follow-up from followers." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is present: \"Ihr habt eine DM ❤️\" (You have a DM ❤️). This is a typical, concise follower/visitor message used to alert the account to a private message. It appears natural and context-appropriate, with low indicators of automation or templated spam. However, the sample size is extremely small (single comment) so conclusions about the overall authenticity and engagement quality of the account are limited. Public engagement appears very low based on this single visible comment — that can be a negative signal for advertising unless private interactions (DMs), story views, saves, reach, or other metrics are strong. For ad-buy decisions, request more data: full comment set, likes, story metrics, reach/impressions, follower growth pattern, audience demographics, and account history. Recommendation: treat this single comment as genuine but insufficient evidence to approve an ad purchase; further verification required." }

Text: Der Obstkorb überzeugt immer ☝️😂🫡

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/generic compliment with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval/appreciation of the content (social engagement), likely to signal liking/support rather than substantive product feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: \"Der Obstkorb überzeugt immer ☝️😂🫡\" (German: \"The fruit basket always convinces\"), a short positive reaction with emojis. The message reads naturally and does not match typical bot/spam templates, so the individual comment appears likely genuine. However, a single generic positive comment offers limited evidence of real audience engagement or purchase intent. For advertisement feasibility you should not rely on this alone: check volume and variety of comments across multiple posts, commenter profiles (active accounts vs newly created), timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios. Based on the single comment, engagement quality is weak (too small a sample) though the sentiment is positive. Recommendation: gather more comments and metadata before a buying decision; inspect commenter accounts and historical comment patterns to raise confidence." }

Text: Warum nur bin ich keine MFA🤷🏼‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "relatable/personal reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal identification or mild envy (humorous/affective engagement) toward the post's content; intended to show relatability and participate in conversation rather than to promote or spam." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"Warum nur bin ich keine MFA🤷🏼‍♀️\" (\"Why am I not an MFA?\"). The tone, emoji use and phrasing point to a genuine human reaction expressing envy/aspiration or light-hearted relatability, not a promotional or bot-like message. There are no markers of automation (no links, generic praise, repeated hashtags, or sales language). However, a single short comment provides very limited signal about overall audience quality or engagement health. For advertising decisions this indicates some authentic audience connection but insufficient volume and diversity of engagement to rely on — further data needed (total comment count, like:comment ratio, comment timestamps, follower demographics, and presence of recurring authentic commenters). Based on this lone comment I rate the likelihood of it being fake low (10/100), but my confidence is moderate because of the extremely small sample. Overall suitability for advertising based solely on these comments is low (30/100) with moderate-low confidence; recommend a broader engagement audit before purchase." }

Text: 🤣🤣 Meritas Blick🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Reaction / engagement (humorous)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement at the subject's facial expression ('Merita's look') using laughter emojis — short, informal engagement that signals attention but not substantive feedback or product interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('🤣🤣 Meritas Blick🤣') is a brief, emoji-rich reaction that appears genuine and context-specific (refers to 'Merita' and her look). It functions as light engagement or social validation rather than a promotional endorsement or a detailed user opinion. Because it references a person by name and uses natural-language phrasing, it is unlikely to be an automated bot/spam comment; however, with only one comment available, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall authenticity of the account's audience or the influencer's suitability for advertising. For ad-buy decisions, this type of comment indicates visibility and some audience engagement but provides no evidence of product interest, conversion potential, or audience quality. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, like patterns of repetition, sentiment distribution, commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratios, and timing patterns before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive feedback / applause — signal approval or acknowledgment without substantive engagement. Can serve to boost visible engagement metrics." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment consisting of three clapping emojis. This is a low-effort positive reaction that provides very limited information about audience authenticity or intent. Such comments can be genuine (a real follower expressing approval) but are also commonly produced by bots, engagement pods, or users leaving quick surface-level engagement. Given only one emoji comment, I rate the fakeness risk as moderate (40/100) with moderate confidence (55/100) because the sample is extremely small and lacks context (commenter profile, timing, frequency, diversity of comments).\n\nOverall suitability for advertising based on this comment alone is low (35/100) with moderate confidence (50/100). The single emoji does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, purchase intent, or high-quality engagement. Before making an advertising decision, analyze additional signals: total number of comments, variety and substance of comments, commenter account authenticity (followers, posting history), engagement rate relative to follower count, like-to-comment ratio, and temporal patterns (bursts that indicate pods)." }

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 were supplied for analysis" } ], "interpretation": "You did not include the Instagram comments to analyze. I cannot assess comment types, purposes, or fakeness without the comment text or a transcript/screenshot. Please paste the comments (or a representative sample) and I will return: - classification of comment types and purposes - fakeness score (0–100) with confidence for the comments and overall post - interpretation and recommendation for 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": 80, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Health misinformation / unsupported medical claim", "count": 1, "purpose": "Assert incorrect causal medical relationships (vitamin D deficiency → skin cancer) and cast doubt on mainstream medical advice (sunscreen). Aims to persuade and inform others about health behavior." }, { "type": "Personal opinion / advice", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses the commenter’s belief and gives practical advice on sun exposure (minimize sunscreen, moderate sun). Seeks agreement or affirmation from other readers." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment contains clear health-related misinformation presented as factual advice: the claim that vitamin D deficiency causes skin cancer and that many doctors oppose sunscreens is inaccurate or misleading. The tone is advisory and affirming (includes a sun emoji), typical of a layperson sharing strongly held beliefs rather than citing sources. For an advertising feasibility assessment: this comment signals possible audience skepticism toward conventional skin-care advice and a susceptibility to health misinformation. That raises risk for brands in regulated or health-sensitive categories (sunscreens, dermatological products, medical claims), because the environment may not be perceived as medically credible. Conversely, supplements (e.g., vitamin D) or alternative-health advertisers might see alignment, but should still be cautious about regulatory exposure and brand safety. Recommendation: do a broader sample of comments to check prevalence of similar claims, run a follower authenticity audit, and avoid placing regulated health or clinical-product ads without additional content moderation or influencer vetting." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 90, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Constructive criticism / etiquette suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express an opinion and request a change in behaviour (suggest the poster move to the aisle for the benefit of others); social norm enforcement" } ], "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 a natural, context-specific remark offering a polite but pointed suggestion about seating etiquette. It is unlikely to be fake or bot-generated (low fakeness score) because it references situational detail and uses conversational phrasing. Tone is mildly critical rather than promotional or spammy, indicating a real follower engaging with the content. For advertising feasibility: this single comment shows genuine engagement but a slightly negative/corrective sentiment; it does not indicate broad enthusiasm or clear brand-aligned advocacy. Recommendation: obtain and analyze a larger sample of recent comments to judge overall audience sentiment, engagement quality, and alignment with your brand before making a purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 78, "overall_confidence": 75, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product question / genuine user engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks information about the sunscreen's effectiveness over an 8-hour flight — indicates product interest, potential purchase intent or use-case concern." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as a genuine, specific question from a follower rather than a generic or promotional remark. It shows practical interest in the product's performance (duration/efficacy), which is a positive signal for advertising: followers are engaging with product details and may convert if the influencer responds helpfully. Fakeness risk is low based on language naturalness and specificity, but confidence is limited because this is only one data point. Recommend the influencer reply with clear guidance (SPF, reapplication advice, test results or link to product info) and monitor whether similar, specific questions recur — consistent patterns of specific engagement strengthen the case for paid campaigns. Also advise spot-checking the commenter's profile for authenticity (recent activity, follower ratio) before drawing firm conclusions." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Informational / Advice", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide a practical tip or additional information related to the post (mentions protective films in the cockpit)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Also im Cockpit gibt es wohl besondere Folien, die davor schützen sollen') is specific and topical — it offers a practical detail rather than a generic praise or emoji. That pattern usually indicates a genuine user contributing experience or a suggestion, not an obvious bot/generic promotional comment. Given only one comment, however, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall authenticity of the account's audience or comment stream. For advertising feasibility: this comment is a small positive signal (engaged, relevant audience), but you need more data before deciding. Recommended next checks: analyze comment volume and diversity across multiple recent posts, like-to-follower ratio, timing of comments (clusters that suggest bought engagement), repeated phrases or accounts, commenter account age and activity, and whether comments are mostly one-word/generic or substantive like this one. Based on the single comment alone I give a low fakeness score (10) but only moderate confidence (60) and an overall ad-feasibility score of 45 with low confidence (40) because the dataset is insufficient to reliably assess influencer quality for advertising." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "opinion / conversational engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Responds to post content with personal preference and light praise (acknowledges information, states intention to keep window open, compliments the view)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Gute Info, aber ich lasse das Fenster trotzdem oben. Liebe die Aussicht') reads like a genuine human reaction: it acknowledges the post's information, gives a personal preference, and expresses a positive sentiment about the view. There are no typical bot markers (repeated phrases, generic praise, emojis-only, promotional links) and the language is natural and context-specific, so the fakeness estimate is low. However, this is only one comment — the sample is too small to assess overall audience quality or engagement patterns reliably. For advertising feasibility: this comment indicates some real, conversational engagement, but you need a larger, representative comment sample, plus metrics like comment diversity, timestamps, follower quality, like-to-comment ratio, and commenter account authenticity to make a confident buy/no-buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "technical question / informational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for clarification about material properties (airplane window acrylic) and UV protection; seeking to understand whether partial UV shielding is present." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears to be a genuine, content-focused question from a user with some technical knowledge (mentions acrylic, absorption to ~300 nm, and 380 nm as full UV protection). Language and detail indicate an engaged, real person rather than a short generic compliment or a bot. There are minor imprecisions possible (e.g., exact cutoffs depend on material and coatings), but overall the comment raises a relevant product/usage concern that could be useful for an advertiser targeting informed buyers. However, this is only one comment — you cannot generalize about the post's overall engagement or authenticity from it alone. Recommendations: sample more comments across this post and others on the influencer's feed; check commenter profiles for real accounts (profile history, followers, interactions); look at comment diversity, timing, and reply rates; and compute like/comment ratios and repetitiveness. If many comments show similar depth and specificity, that strengthens the case for authentic, valuable audience engagement for advertising. Based on this single comment, I give a cautious midline overall suitability score of 50/100." }

Text: Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Skeptical / Critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "To express skepticism or mild irritation about the phrasing 'well aging'—calls out a marketing term and signals perceived inauthenticity or jargon." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Wenn ich schon sehe ‚well aging‘') is a brief, critical reaction to the phrase 'well aging'. It reads like an organic human response (specific reference to wording, in German), not a generic promotional or bot-like message. Purpose is to question or mock the marketing language, indicating at least this commenter perceives the post's wording as inauthentic or cliché. With only one comment, this is weak evidence: a lone skeptical remark does not prove the audience is broadly negative, but it does show that some followers notice and react to phrasing. For advertising decisions this is a moderate cautionary signal — if many comments show similar tone it would be a stronger negative indicator for authenticity and audience fit. Recommended next steps before buying ad space: analyze a larger sample of comments for sentiment and themes, check engagement rate vs follower count, inspect follower quality (bots/inactive), and review performance on past sponsored posts. Based on this single comment, likelihood of comments being fake is low, but overall suitability for advertising is uncertain and currently middling (score 45/100) given the limited data." }

Text: Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question/Suggestion", "count": 1, "purpose": "User asks for clarification and suggests an alternative action (book an aisle seat). Signals engagement and a desire for practical information." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Aber wieso dann keinen Platz am Gang buchen?') reads as a genuine, context-specific question/suggestion in German. It shows conversational engagement rather than promotional language or typical bot patterns (no emojis flood, no generic praise, natural phrasing). Fakeness is therefore low. However, this is only one comment: the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or community sentiment. For ad-buy decisions, this comment indicates some real audience interaction but is neutral/constructive rather than enthusiastic endorsement. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger set of comments (volume, reply chains, variety of commenters), compare like-to-comment ratios, check temporal posting patterns and commenter profiles for bot indicators, and review sentiment distribution. Based on this single data point the post shows limited persuasive engagement for advertising (hence a moderate overall score), but confidence in that overall assessment is low because of the very small sample size." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Questioning/engagement (genuine)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks clarification and expresses confusion with humor; functions as conversational engagement rather than promotion, spam, or bot-driven comment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Was hat das eine mit dem anderen zu tun hä?😂') is colloquial German, includes a laughing emoji and an informal interjection ('hä?'), and contains no links, hashtags, or generic praise. These characteristics strongly suggest a real human responding with confusion or playful skepticism about the post content. Fakeness likelihood is low (score 10) with moderate-to-high confidence because the language and emoji use are natural. However, this is only one comment — it does not indicate audience sentiment toward the influencer’s value for advertising (no purchase intent, endorsement, or criticism). Overall feasibility for ad purchase cannot be determined from this single data point (overall score 50) and the confidence is low. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample (ideally 50–200 recent comments), check comment diversity and timing patterns, look for repeated phrasing or usernames, compute comment-to-follower and like-to-comment ratios, and audit follower accounts for authenticity before making advertising decisions." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive reaction / personal engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/amusement and engage with the post (emotional response using emojis), likely to show appreciation and increase visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Oha ich werd braun wenn ich fliege???😍😍\" is a brief, colloquial German reaction with enthusiastic emojis. Characteristics that suggest it is genuine: casual phrasing, punctuation and emoji usage consistent with a real user reacting, no generic marketing language or repetitive tag patterns. It appears to be a playful compliment or amused observation rather than a promotional or bot-like message. Risks and uncertainties: assessment is based on one comment only, so sample size is too small to generalize; some low-effort bot or fake accounts can mimic this style. Given the limited data, the comment likely represents authentic engagement but this alone provides weak evidence for overall audience quality. For advertising feasibility, more comments, commenter account checks (age, follower count, posting history), engagement rate across multiple posts, and diversity of comment types should be evaluated before making a buying decision." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/positive reaction; low-effort engagement that signals approval but carries little information about genuine interest or purchase intent" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is a lone '😂' emoji. This indicates a minimal, positive-reactive engagement but provides very little signal about the audience's authenticity, intent, or relevance for advertising. A single emoji can be organic (a real follower quickly reacting) or produced by automated/low-effort accounts — hence a modest fakeness score with limited confidence. Based on this comment alone, the post offers weak evidence for ad purchase suitability. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, number of unique commenters, comment diversity and relevance, commenter account quality (age, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, and overall engagement rate (likes vs followers). Use these broader metrics before making a purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Opinion / Critique", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disagreement with the influencer's position and criticize their approach; signals genuine engagement and pushback." }, { "type": "Personal preference / Anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a personal preference (prefers windowed flights) and evoke the experiential value of the activity described." }, { "type": "Normative / Advice", "count": 1, "purpose": "Offer broader life-advice (arguing against over-caution), attempting to reframe the conversation and persuade others." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads organic and contextually specific (references windows, view, children, and the influencer being a doctor). Tone: mildly critical but not abusive — it defends experiential value and pushes back against risk-avoidance rhetoric. Purpose combines personal preference, critique, and normative advice. For influencer analysis: the presence of this kind of engaged, nuanced comment suggests an audience that is attentive and willing to voice real opinions (positive signal for authenticity). However, it also signals potential sensitivity around topics framed as 'risk' or 'safety' — brands that touch those themes should expect some pushback. Limitations: assessment is based on one comment only, so generalization to the whole audience is uncertain. Overall, comments appear low-fake and reasonably valuable for advertising targeting travel/experience-oriented brands, with caution for campaigns emphasizing extreme safety messaging." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Advice / Informational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Offer practical advice about UV protection (leave the window blind open; use sunscreen). Appears as authentic user engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, natural-sounding piece of practical advice in German. It contains no promotional language, hashtags, links, or tagging and has conversational punctuation, which suggests it is likely from a real follower rather than a bot or paid commenter. However, this is only one comment — the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall authenticity of the post's comment section or the influencer's audience engagement. For advertising feasibility, this single genuine-looking comment is mildly positive but insufficient by itself; review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and engagement consistency before making a buy decision." }

Text: Innere Medizin ist viel interessanter 😉😁

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Opinion / Comparative", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal preference (saying 'Internal medicine is much more interesting') and playful engagement (use of winking and smiling emojis). Signals topical relevance to a medical audience and mild conversational banter rather than promotional intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: a brief, topic-specific remark in German with emojis. The content appears organic (low likelihood of being fake) and serves as light engagement from a likely real user, possibly with a medical interest. However, a single comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or influencer authenticity. Engagement volume and diversity are very low in this sample, so advertising-feasibility is limited based on these comments alone. Recommendation: obtain the full comment set, total comments, like counts, follower demographics, repeated-comment patterns, timing, and additional signals (account ages, commenter profiles) before making a placement decision. Current snapshot suggests modest relevance to medical audiences but insufficient evidence to justify ad spend by itself." }

Text: Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Humorous reaction / laughter", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and social engagement (reacting to post content with humor). Serves to signal relatability and entertain other followers; not a promotional or purchase-intent comment." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided, so this assessment is based on a very small sample. The comment 'Ich brech ab, die Gastro 😂😂😂😂' is colloquial, context-specific and uses multiple emojis, which makes it likely organic rather than bot-generated or paid (fakeness score low). Its purpose is to show amusement and social validation of the post content; it does not indicate product interest, purchase intent, or a promotional interaction. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single comment is weak evidence: it suggests the influencer can elicit emotional/entertaining reactions from at least some followers, but it does not demonstrate meaningful engagement types advertisers usually look for (questions about products, endorsements, user experiences, conversions, or calls to action). Recommendation: analyze a larger, time-distributed sample of comments (look for diversity: questions, brand mentions, unsolicited recommendations, purchase signals, account authenticity and follower profiles, timing patterns, and ratio of generic compliments/spam) before making an ad-buy decision." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval; lightweight engagement with low informational value. Often used to signal a positive reaction without adding context; can be genuine casual response or, less commonly, low-effort bot/engagement-farm output." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it is an emoji-only reaction (four 'rolling on the floor laughing' emojis). This is low-effort engagement: it indicates the post elicited amusement but provides no demographic, purchase intent, or conversational signal. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers, so the fakeness likelihood is moderate-low (estimated 30/100) but confidence is limited because of the single data point. For advertising feasibility this comment is weak evidence — it neither confirms an engaged, relevant audience nor indicates coordinated/inauthentic activity. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, measure comment diversity (questions, mentions, tagged users), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, follower quality, and recurrence of similar emoji-only comments to better assess authenticity and ad suitability." }

Text: Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "reaction / emotional", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and positive emotional response; lightweight engagement to signal enjoyment and social approval." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ich lach mich schlapp...😂😂😂😂😂') is a short, positive emotional reaction with multiple emojis. As an isolated data point it appears genuine and low-effort (not clearly automated), but it carries little informational value for advertising decisions (no purchase intent, no product feedback, no questions). The low depth and quantity of comments mean you cannot reliably judge audience quality or conversion potential from this post alone. Possible concerns to watch for on other posts: many short identical reactions or emoji-only replies across multiple posts would be a red flag for inorganic engagement. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments across several recent posts, check commenter account quality (activity, followers, content), like-to-comment ratios, and repetition patterns before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive reaction / endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration or approval of the post (emotional reaction), likely meant to praise or show support; includes emoji to amplify sentiment." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single short comment: 'Geburtshilfe 😍😍😍'. This reads as a brief positive reaction—either admiration for content related to obstetrics/birth assistance or a short emotive endorsement. The comment is too short to allow strong conclusions about authenticity; brevity and generic emoji use slightly increase the possibility of low-effort engagement or bot-like activity, but the presence of a specific German word tied to a topic (rather than generic praise like 'nice') suggests some topical relevance and reduces likelihood of wholesale automation. Overall the engagement signal from comments is very weak (n=1) and provides low informational value for ad-buy decisions. Before considering advertising purchase, request more data: full comment set, likes, follower quality, engagement rate, commenter account profiles, and growth history. Based on current evidence, proceed with caution; do not base an ad-buy decision on this single comment." }

Text: Chirurgie ♥️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short/one-word + emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief supportive/expressive engagement — could be praise of a procedure/result (mentions 'Chirurgie'), an inside-joke, or a low-effort engagement (emoji endorsement). May also be generic bot/spam comment if repeated across posts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided ('Chirurgie ♥️') is ambiguous and very low-information. It appears to be a short supportive remark referencing 'surgery' (French/German for 'chirurgie') with a heart emoji. Possible explanations: (a) a genuine follower complimenting or referencing surgical/aesthetic content; (b) a casual/low-effort engagement (quick like/emoji) common on influencer posts; (c) a generic or automated comment placed by a bot or low-quality engagement account. Because there's only one comment to analyze, pattern-based signals (repetition, timing, commenter profile, language distribution, duplicates, comment likes) are unavailable, so confidence in any fakeness judgment is low. For ad-buy decisions this single data point is insufficient. Before committing to a purchase, request a larger sample of recent comments and perform these checks: commenter account audits (age, follower/following ratio, post history), frequency of identical comments across posts, comment like counts, engagement rate relative to follower count, audience demographics and consistency with the campaign, and any signs of purchased engagement (clusters of new accounts, many non-native-language comments). Given the ambiguity and lack of context, treat this as a weak signal of engagement — not reliable proof of an authentic, engaged audience." }

Text: Dermatologie?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question / information-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "The commenter is asking whether the post/content is related to dermatology — likely seeking clarification or more information." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Dermatologie?'. This is a simple, single-word question asking whether the content concerns dermatology. As a standalone comment it represents genuine-looking engagement (a user seeking information), not clearly promotional, generic praise, or obvious bot spam. Because the sample is extremely small (n=1) no robust conclusions can be drawn about overall audience authenticity, engagement quality, or community tone. For advertising feasibility this single data point is insufficient: low visible engagement and lack of conversational replies or likes around the comment reduce confidence in audience activity. Recommendation: obtain a larger comment sample, commenter profile metadata (account age, follower counts, comment history), like counts, and post reach to make a reliable ad-purchase decision." }

Text: @corinnafeldmeier 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag + emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "User tags another account and reacts with an emoji (laugh). Purpose is to share the post with someone and express amusement; indicates interpersonal sharing rather than promotional content." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single short comment: an @-mention of another user plus a laughing emoji. This pattern most commonly reflects a genuine follower tagging a friend to draw their attention and react emotionally, not an obvious bot or paid promotional comment. Fakeness risk is low but confidence is limited because the sample size is one. For ad-buy decisions this single comment neither strongly supports nor strongly undermines the influencer's authenticity or engagement quality. Recommended next steps: inspect a larger sample of comments for repeated phrasing or duplicate emoji comments, check overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), review comment timestamps for bursts, and run a follower authenticity audit before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction (short, low-effort)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive reaction / quick engagement without substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single short emoji comment (\"😂😂\"). This is a low-information, low-effort engagement signal: it indicates the commenter found the content amusing but provides no substantive endorsement, detail, or intent to purchase. Short emoji comments are common both from genuine viewers and from automated/inorganic accounts used to inflate engagement, so the likelihood of inauthenticity is non-negligible. Given only one comment, confidence is low — you cannot reliably assess community quality or advertising suitability from this alone. For a robust influencer-advertising decision, request more data: volume and variety of comments across multiple posts, commenter profile checks (real accounts vs. bots), engagement rate vs. follower count, timing patterns, and presence of meaningful conversation or questions. Based solely on this comment, influence for conversion appears weak (low qualitative engagement)." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive personal praise / anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and personal connection (saying the profession is their favourite and motivated them to enter medicine) — likely meant to compliment the creator and signal relatability." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, natural-sounding German remark with an emoji that expresses admiration and a personal connection to the subject (“My favourite profession… the only reason I went into medicine”). This reads as a genuine follower testimony or relatable praise rather than obvious spam or bot output. However, one comment is an extremely small sample size for judging overall audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects the organic phrasing and personal content, but confidence is moderate-to-low because a single comment offers little evidence about the wider comment set or follower authenticity. For advertising feasibility: this isolated comment is mildly positive signal (audience engagement and emotional connection), but the overall assessment remains cautious (score 30) because you need more data — comment volume, diversity, timing, follower profiles, and other engagement metrics — before deciding on ad spend. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check engagement rate vs follower count, inspect commenter accounts for real profiles vs bot patterns, and review sentiment and topical relevance to your brand." }

Text: HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/reactive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and engagement with the post (short, emoji-rich reaction; likely a casual follower or viewer making a joke or inside reference)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"HNO kam zu spät 😍🤣\" (German: \"ENT came too late\" with heart-eyes and laughing emojis) reads like a brief, informal, humorous reaction rather than a promotional or bot-like message. Indicators of authenticity: natural language, an inside-joke tone, mixed emojis and no generic marketing phrasing or links. Indicators limiting confidence: only one comment provided, so sample size is too small to generalize about the overall audience or comment authenticity. Given the available data, fakeness is assessed as low (10/100) with moderate-high confidence because the comment's form and content resemble organic engagement; however, the overall suitability of this influencer for advertising cannot be judged reliably from one comment — the moderate overall score (45/100) reflects that the single positive, organic-feeling comment is a small positive signal but insufficient evidence of a broad, engaged, authentic audience. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments (multiple posts, comment timestamps, commenter profiles) and metrics (likes, follower quality, engagement rate) before making an advertising purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Humorous / Reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and relatability to the post content (uses laughing emojis and a context-specific joke). Functions as light engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is in German and reads roughly: \"The farts at the gastro kill me\" with repeated laughing emojis. It is a context-specific, colloquial, and expressive reaction that strongly suggests a genuine human response rather than a bot or fake account (use of idiomatic phrasing and multiple emojis supports authenticity). There are no signs of promotional language, link spam, or generic copy-paste phrases. However, this is only one comment — the sample is too small to draw robust conclusions about overall audience quality or the influencer's suitability for advertising. For ad-buy decisions you need broader metrics: total comment volume, diversity of commenters, conversation depth, engagement rate vs. follower count, timing patterns, and checks for repeated/generic comments across posts. Based on this single comment the fakeness risk is low, but overall confidence in campaign feasibility is limited by insufficient data." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal / emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal discomfort or avoidance (negative sentiment), engages with the post on an emotional level." }, { "type": "Insider / knowledgeable reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "References a specific medical procedure (DMEK), indicating subject-matter familiarity and adding specificity that suggests authenticity." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is likely genuine (low fakeness score). It uses a specific, technical term (DMEK) and an emoji to convey a light-hearted but negative reaction — \"I would opt out\" — to the topic (ophthalmology / a procedure). This indicates the commenter knows the subject and is reacting emotionally rather than posting a generic compliment or promotional message, which reduces the likelihood of it being bot-driven or paid. However, the sentiment is mildly negative/avoidant rather than endorsing; as a signal for advertising suitability it is not supportive. Because this analysis is based on one comment only, confidence in any conclusions about audience authenticity, sentiment distribution, or influencer suitability is limited. For a responsible ad-buy decision, analyze a larger sample of comments, reply threads, like counts, follower quality, and sentiment breakdown. Based on this single comment the post shows real engagement but not demonstrable promotional value — hence a moderate-low overall score (45) with moderate confidence." }

Text: Gute Wahl

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval or endorsement of the content (short, supportive engagement)." }, { "type": "Neutral/informational", "count": 0, "purpose": "No neutral or informational comments (e.g., facts, clarifications) observed." }, { "type": "Questions/inquiries", "count": 0, "purpose": "No questions or requests for more information observed." }, { "type": "Promotional/spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "No promotional content, links, or solicitation observed." }, { "type": "Negative/criticism", "count": 0, "purpose": "No negative feedback or criticism observed." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Gute Wahl' ('Good choice' in German) is a brief positive reaction, likely from a German-speaking user. As a standalone data point it suggests low-level genuine engagement (a short supportive remark) rather than coordinated or clearly automated behavior. However, the sample size is extremely small, so confidence in any judgment is limited. The low fakeness score reflects that short positive comments are common from real followers; they can also be produced by bots, but there are no additional indicators here (repetition, promotional language, irrelevant links). For advertising feasibility: current comments provide little evidence of strong, engaged audience interest — one brief compliment is insufficient to judge reach, audience quality, or conversion potential. Before recommending an ad purchase, request more data: total comments per post, like-to-follower ratio, comment diversity, commenter account quality (profiles, activity), timing patterns, and any recurring comment templates across posts." }

Text: Yeah Fließbandarbeit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short critical/sarcastic reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express dissatisfaction or critique (likely of the content or creator's approach); provokes engagement or signals negative sentiment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Yeah Fließbandarbeit\" (German for \"assembly line work\") reads as a brief, critical/sarcastic reaction implying the content is formulaic or mass-produced. As an isolated comment it appears authentic (low likelihood of being bot/spam or a paid promotional line) because it conveys negative sentiment and uses a non-generic phrasing. Confidence is moderate because one short comment offers limited evidence. For advertising feasibility: this single negative remark is not sufficient to judge the audience overall, but it does flag potential perception issues — some followers may view the influencer's content as repetitive or inauthentic, which can harm ad effectiveness if that sentiment is common. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of comments for sentiment distribution, engagement rate, follower authenticity, and presence of inorganic comments. If many similar critical comments appear, reduce score for ad suitability; if most comments are positive/engaged, this lone critique is low risk." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal anecdote / genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses the commenter’s personal reaction (declining something) and aligns with the post; indicates real user perspective and topical engagement." }, { "type": "Humor / sarcasm", "count": 1, "purpose": "Uses laughing emojis and a joking comparison ('even worse is Funktionsoberarzt') to make a light-hearted, humorous remark that increases perceived authenticity." }, { "type": "Promotional / bot-like", "count": 0, "purpose": "No clear signs of self-promotion, link-posting, or repeated generic praise typical of bots or paid comments." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears organic and authentic: it is first-person, contextual, uses humour/emojis, and refers to a specific concept ('Funktionsoberarzt'), which looks like a domain-specific job title rather than a stock phrase. There are low signs of automation or coordinated fake engagement. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience quality or the post’s genuine engagement level. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single genuine-seeming comment is a positive signal but insufficient on its own. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments for repetition or templated wording, check commenter account ages and activity, analyze like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns, and follower quality. Also note the niche language/content (German, medical job reference) which may indicate a specialized audience—useful if the brand’s target aligns with that niche, problematic if not." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 90, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "engagement / conversational question (humorous/teasing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "To provoke further discussion, show familiarity with the poster, inject humor/sarcasm about household chores and invite clarification or anecdotes." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as authentic, human, and context-aware — a light-hearted question about who handles household chores, delivered with a smiling/embarrassed emoji that signals teasing rather than hostility. It is not promotional, bot-like, or generic spam; instead it demonstrates follower engagement and topical interest tied to domestic/family content. For influencer advertising, this is a positive signal if the campaign targets household products, family services, or lifestyle content — it shows real audience interaction. Caveats: assessment is based on one comment only; broader conclusions require analysis of many comments, commenter profiles (accounts, activity history), timing, and diversity of responses to confirm overall audience authenticity and sentiment." }

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": 90, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "professional anecdote / challenge (brief firsthand experience + question)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share personal work-experience as a medical specialist and question/challenge the post's implication (seeking clarification about claimed work hours and specialty)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is detailed, specific and professional — the author identifies themselves as a neurosurgery specialist, gives a concrete metric (60% position → 40 weekly hours) and asks how a senior attending ('leitender OA') could have only 40 hours and in which specialty. That specificity, use of professional terms and a clear challenge to the post indicate a high likelihood the comment is genuine rather than bot/spam or generic engagement. For influencer-advertising assessment this signals an engaged, informed and skeptical portion of the audience: good for credibility-sensitive or professional products (where expert scrutiny is valuable), but potentially less receptive to vague or low-evidence sponsored claims. Important caveat: assessment is based on a single comment snapshot — sample size is too small to generalize reliably. Recommend collecting a larger set of comments (and engagement metrics like likes/replies, follower overlap and comment timestamps) before making a final advertising buy decision." }

Text: Top!👍🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short praise / generic positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval or endorsement; low-effort engagement intended to signal positivity and slightly boost visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Top!👍🏼' is a brief, generic positive remark. Such comments are common both from genuine followers offering quick praise and from automated/low-quality engagement (bots or paid commenters) because they are non-specific and require no context. With only one comment provided, the data are insufficient to determine authenticity or audience quality with high confidence. The fakeness score is moderately high because the comment's generic form matches common bot/engagement-farm patterns; confidence is only moderate due to lack of supporting context (commenter profile, comment timing, volume/diversity of comments, like-to-comment ratios). For advertising feasibility this single comment offers weak evidence of meaningful audience engagement — assign a cautious overall score. Recommended next steps before any ad buy: examine commenter account(s) for follower/following ratios and posting history, check broader comment set for variety and conversational replies, inspect engagement rates across multiple posts, and analyze audience demographics and reach." }

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": 80, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine question / career curiosity", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seek personal background info; signal professional interest; engage author in conversation; shows relevance of audience to medical/aesthetic topics" } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as authentic and specific — it asks how the influencer moved from ophthalmology to aesthetic medicine and identifies the commenter as an internist who finds such career paths interesting. It is not promotional, generic praise, or clearly bot-like. Purpose is to start a substantive exchange and demonstrates that at least part of the audience may be medically trained or professionally interested in the influencer's career, which is valuable for targeted advertising in medical/aesthetic niches. However, this is only one data point: to judge advertising feasibility reliably, analyze volume and diversity of comments, commenter profiles (credentials, follower counts), timing, and prevalence of generic or repetitive comments. Based on this single comment, engagement quality looks positive but sample size is too small for a confident buy/no-buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "sarcastic/critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express annoyance/sarcasm about perceived drama (mentions 'Affäre' / affair). Likely a genuine negative reaction rather than promotional or bot activity." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: 'Und jeder kriegt sogar noch ne Affäre unter, perfekt 😶‍🌫️' — a colloquial German, sarcastic remark complaining that people are even adding an affair underneath. Characteristics that point to authenticity: informal language, context-specific content, and use of emoji. This is not a generic compliment or spammy call-to-action that bots or fake engagement commonly use. Sentiment is negative/skeptical and indicates at least some audience members react critically or perceive drama around the post. However, one comment is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or the influencer's suitability for advertising. For ad-feasibility assessment you should analyze a larger sample (e.g., 200+ recent comments), engagement rate, diversity of commentators (profiles, follower counts), repetition patterns, timing of comments, and presence of generic promotional comments or spam. Based on this single data point the comment appears genuine (low fakeness), but the negative tone suggests you should inspect broader audience sentiment before purchase." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "motivational / positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express support and encouragement; increase visible engagement (likes/comments) and boost post sentiment/visibility" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a generic, positive motivational remark in German (“Everything is possible, you just have to want it and be able to organize yourself. 🔥🔥🔥”). It serves to show support and improve perceived engagement. Features that lower perceived authenticity: generic phrasing, use of emojis, no personalization (no username mention, no specific reference to post content). Features that support authenticity: natural grammar, language matches likely audience, plausible human phrasing. Given only one comment to analyze, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. The comment could be genuine follower encouragement or a low-effort engagement from an interaction-pod/bot. For an advertising decision, this single comment provides weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommend further checks before purchase: review a larger set of recent comments for diversity and specificity, examine commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), check timing patterns (many comments in short windows), and compare likes-to-comments ratio. Based on this lone comment, I assign a modest fakeness risk (30/100) but with low confidence and a conservative overall suitability score (35/100) for ad spend until broader comment and audience signals are reviewed." }

Text: Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "skeptical/sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disbelief/ridicule; signal skepticism toward post content; engage via humor/sarcasm" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Wer das glaubt wird selig 😂\". Linguistic cues (colloquial German phrasing plus laughing emoji) indicate a sarcastic, dismissive reaction rather than promotional or bot-like language. This comment likely comes from a real user expressing skepticism or mocking the claim in the post; it contributes engagement but is negative in sentiment. Given the single-sample limitation, the comment appears genuine (low fakeness score) but the confidence is moderate because bots/accounts can mimic casual phrasing.\n\nFor advertising feasibility: a solitary sarcastic/negative comment is not decisive. It shows there is at least some critical audience present, which could signal a mismatch between message and follower trust or that the topic is contentious. However, you cannot judge overall audience quality, sentiment distribution, or presence of fake/generic praise from one comment. Recommended next steps before ad purchase: sample a larger set of recent comments, check top commenters' profiles for authenticity, compare like-to-comment ratio, assess sentiment spread (positive/neutral/negative), and look for repetitive/generic praise that would indicate purchased engagement. Based on the single comment, I would treat the influencer as uncertain for advertising (score 45) and recommend further data collection." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/banter (follower-to-influencer)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Playful familiarity and engagement — a follower teasingly expresses preference for the influencer's role/part in the content, indicating personal connection rather than spam or promotion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“Zu, da kommst du aber sehr gut weg. Hätte dann auch lieber deinen Part😳”) is informal, in German, and reads as a playful/jealous remark directed at the content creator (or a collaborator). It references a specific 'part' in the content, uses natural phrasing and an emoji, and does not contain generic praise, emojis-only, marketing language, links, or repeated patterns typical of bots. Based on language and specificity it likely comes from a real follower familiar with the post/context. However, this is only one comment — the sample is too small to generalize about the overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For ad-buy decisions, this comment is a positive signal (shows real, relational engagement) but insufficient alone: recommend analyzing a larger set of recent comments for repetition/templates, timing patterns, user profiles (age, follower counts, account creation dates), and overall comment diversity before finalizing purchase decisions." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive reaction / social affirmation (low informational value). Can serve as social proof but is commonly used both by genuine followers and by automated/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of a heart emoji was provided. This is a very low-information signal: it indicates positive sentiment but gives no detail about genuine interest, intent to purchase, or thoughtful engagement. Emoji-only comments are easy to generate at scale by bots and are also frequently used by genuine followers, so their presence alone is not a strong authenticity indicator. Given the minimal comment volume and lack of varied, substantive comments, the comments offer weak evidence for strong audience engagement or ad-readiness. For an advertising purchase decision, request more data: a larger sample of comments, the ratio of comments to followers (engagement rate), comment timing patterns, username analysis for repetitiveness, and other engagement metrics (likes, saves, story interactions). Based on the single emoji comment, I rate the comment authenticity as uncertain-to-moderately-suspect and the suitability for advertising as low until more comprehensive data is provided." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Advice-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "A genuine follower asking for recommendations about facial pores — seeks information/help and signals a personal skincare concern." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Hat jemand Empfehlungen bzgl. Poren im Gesicht? 🥵') appears organic and human: it is specific, uses an emoji, asks for advice rather than posting a generic compliment or promotional language. Fakeness is low (estimated ~15%) because it lacks hallmarks of bots or purchased engagement (no generic phrases, no links, no repeated patterns). For advertising decisions this is mildly positive: it indicates at least one follower expresses an active interest in skincare solutions, which could translate to receptiveness to relevant ads. However the sample size is one comment — this provides very limited signal about overall audience quality, sentiment, conversion potential, or prevalence of authentic engagement. I recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, the like-to-comment ratio, comment diversity, timing patterns, follower authenticity (follower profiles), and prior sponsored post performance before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: 😍👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple positive feedback/approval; low-effort engagement that increases visible engagement and serves as social proof but conveys no substantive interest or intent to convert." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('😍👏') is a positive, emoji-only reaction. Emoji comments are common and can be genuine, but they are also the easiest type to fabricate (bots, engagement pods, or mass-liking services). With only one low-effort comment there is minimal signal about audience quality, intent to purchase, or authentic community engagement. Recommendation: do not base an advertising buy on this alone — request a larger sample of comments, timestamps, commenter account profiles (follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratios, and comment diversity to assess authenticity and audience value more reliably." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Negative / emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disapproval or shock at the post's content; signal disagreement and possibly prompt discussion or complaint." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"Ich bin wirklich entsetzt über solche Aussagen…😮😮😮😮😮\" — a clear negative emotional reaction expressing shock or outrage. The use of repeated shocked-face emojis amplifies the emotional tone. With only one comment, this appears to be an individual, likely genuine reaction rather than coordinated or promotional activity. However, the sample is too small to judge overall audience sentiment. For advertising decisions, this single negative comment is not decisive but is a cautionary signal: investigate whether similar negative reactions are common on this influencer's posts, check the context of the post (what statements prompted the reaction), and review overall engagement quality and follower sentiment. If multiple comments show this pattern, risk to brand safety increases; if isolated, the impact is limited." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical / Negative (authentic user critique)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Challenge the accuracy of the post, correct perceived misinformation about doctors' working hours, express frustration and disbelief; signal possible credibility issue for the content creator." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is a direct, emotionally charged critique in German disputing the post's portrayal of a medical professional's schedule. It cites concrete expectations (work hours, childcare timing) and uses colloquial language and repeated emoji for emphasis — characteristics more consistent with a genuine user than an automated or generic bot comment. There are no typical bot signs (generic praise, irrelevant hashtags, promotional links, or template phrasing). Fakeness is therefore low (estimated 10/100) with reasonably high confidence. For influencer advertising assessment: the comment indicates engagement and that some of the audience will scrutinize factual accuracy and may react negatively if content appears misleading. With only one comment, this is not decisive — it raises a credibility risk that warrants further investigation (review more comments, sentiment distribution, commenter profiles, and overall engagement quality) before deciding on ad spend. Overall suitability for advertising is moderate (55/100) with low confidence (40/100) because the assessment is based on a single data point rather than a broader comment sample." }

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": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine supportive / peer endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Complimenting the creators, signaling professional affinity (mentions being an anesthesiologist), reinforcing credibility of the duo and their services (ophthalmology, aesthetics, longevity)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears authentic: it's detailed, specific (references ophthalmology, aesthetics, longevity), includes a personal professional identifier (Anästhesistin), and uses natural phrasing and emojis. There are no obvious markers of bot-generated or generic promotional comments (no repeated short phrases, no links, no account-promotion language). Fakeness risk is low (score ~12) but confidence is limited because this analysis is based on a single comment sample. For advertising-feasibility: this comment is a positive signal — it suggests the influencer attracts peers or a professionally aligned audience and can generate meaningful qualitative engagement. However, a single supportive comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or conversion potential. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger set of comments for diversity and repetition patterns, check commenter profiles for authenticity and relevance, measure overall engagement rate (likes, saves, reach), and inspect follower growth history and prior sponsored-post performance. Based on the provided comment alone, treat the post as mildly favorable for advertising consideration but require broader data to increase confidence." }

Text: Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "anticipation/positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses interest/anticipation about an upcoming result; basic positive engagement to signal attention." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment is available: \"Bin auf das Ergebnis gespannt 🙌\" (\"I'm excited about the result\"). This is a generic, positive engagement phrase with an emoji. It does not contain spam, links, or obvious bot markers, so the comment itself reads as plausibly authentic. However, it provides almost no informational depth (no personal detail, no reference to the brand/product, no critique), which limits its advertising value. With a single comment sample we cannot assess overall audience quality, engagement patterns, or repetitiveness—hence the modest confidence scores. For an advertising decision, request a larger sample (multiple posts), metrics (likes, comment rate, follower count and growth, comment repetition, language mix), and checks for repeated commenter handles or timing clusters to better detect bots/engagement pods. Based on this single comment, signal for genuine engaged followers is weak but not absent; proceed cautiously and gather more data before purchase." }

Text: Ja

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "ambiguous one-word reply", "count": 1, "purpose": "brief affirmation/acknowledgement — likely a quick ‘yes’ (e.g., German 'Ja') or minimal engagement; could be genuine follower interaction but also matches patterns of low-effort or bot comments that add little promotional value" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single, one-word comment ('Ja') is available, which provides very little signal. That comment is ambiguous: it may be a genuine short affirmation from a follower, or it may be low-effort/bot/spam activity (common in influencer comment sections). Given the minimal content, I assess a moderate probability of fakeness (60) but with low confidence (40) because the sample is too small to be decisive. For advertising decisions this single comment is essentially uninformative — it neither demonstrates meaningful audience interest nor provides evidence of organic, engaged followers. I recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, comment timestamps, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, comment history), overall likes-to-followers ratio, and engagement across multiple posts before making a buy decision. Automated checks to run: detect repeated/identical short replies, account creation dates, follower-to-following ratios, and linguistic patterns. Based on the current minimal data, I rate the post's suitability for advertising low (35) with low confidence (35)." }

Text: 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive reaction (repeated emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/enthusiasm and provide a quick engagement signal; low-information endorsement that can serve to boost apparent engagement. Could be genuine follower support or a low-effort/bot-like interaction." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment consisting of six identical 'raised hands' emojis. This is a positive, low-effort reaction that signals approval but provides no substantive content about intent, purchase interest, or audience knowledge. Such comments are common from genuine followers (quick praise) but are also common in automated or engagement-farmed accounts because they are easy to generate and inflate interaction metrics. Given only one comment, confidence is limited: I estimate a moderate probability of inauthenticity (fakeness 40/100) with moderate confidence (60/100). For advertising-feasibility, this single emoji-driven comment provides weak evidence of a genuinely engaged, relevant audience — overall suitability for ad spend is low-to-moderate (35/100) with moderate confidence (60/100). Recommended next steps before a buy: analyze a larger sample of comments for variety and substance; check commenter profiles for follower counts, activity, and originality; compare likes-to-followers ratio; inspect timing patterns (bursty/unnatural); and review engagement on multiple recent posts." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "testimonial / customer mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Personal report of service experience and tagging the business/account (@liebdeingesicht) — provides social proof and references timing (’1 week after I was with you’) to indicate outcome." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment: '1 Woche nachdem ich bei dir war @liebdeingesicht. ✨🙌'. This reads like a short, specific customer testimonial or client mention rather than a generic praise or spammy one-liner; the tag of the business/account and the time reference add credibility. Given only one comment, sample size is very small so conclusions about the overall audience authenticity and engagement are limited. The low volume of comments suggests weak visible engagement on this post; while the content of this comment appears genuine, it could be from a real client, a collaborator, or a planted testimonial — hence a low but not zero fakeness score. For advertising-buy decisions, this single positive-looking comment is insufficient evidence of reliable, organic engagement. Recommend requesting broader metrics before purchasing: total likes and comments across multiple recent posts, follower count and growth, audience demographics, comment diversity (many unique personal comments vs. repetitive short comments), timestamps to detect bursts, and any direct proof of conversions or repeat customers. Based on current evidence, proceed cautiously; the comment itself is likely authentic but overall engagement appears weak." }

Text: Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/return-intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses longing or intention to return/re-engage with the account/business; functions as emotional engagement and light social proof." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"Ich muss wieder zu euch 😢\" (German: \"I have to come back to you / I must come back to you\") appears personal and organic — uses natural phrasing and an emoji, indicating an emotional connection or desire to re-engage (likely a former customer or follower missing the creator/service). Fakeness rated low (12) because the phrasing is specific and not generic promotional language; confidence is fairly high (75) given the linguistic cues. However, this is only one comment: sample size is too small to judge overall audience authenticity or advertising value. For ad-buy feasibility the signal is weak — a genuine comment is positive, but you need more volume, diversity of commenters, reply patterns, timestamps, and account profile checks (look for repeated templates, many newly created accounts, high like-to-comment ratio, or comment repetition across posts) before committing budget. Recommended next steps: analyze at least 30–50 recent comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter accounts for real profiles and interaction history, and compute engagement rates and comment uniqueness." }

Text: Lieben wir ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / generic praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show simple support or approval (social validation). Low informational value; commonly used to signal engagement without specifics." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Lieben wir ❤️\" (German: \"We love it ❤️\") is a short, generic positive reaction with an emoji. Such comments can be genuine (a follower expressing appreciation) but are also typical of low-effort engagement or templated/bot responses. Factors slightly reducing suspicion: language matches the likely audience (German) and the wording is natural. Factors increasing suspicion: lack of product-specific detail, brevity, and lack of multiple diverse comments to corroborate organic engagement. Given only one comment to analyze, confidence is limited. For advertising-feasibility: this sample indicates low informational quality of engagement. Recommend requesting more data before buying ads — provide full comment set, timestamps, commenters' follower counts and histories, like-to-comment ratio, and overall engagement rate. If most comments are similarly generic and commenters have low/no real activity, treat engagement as low-quality and reduce ad spend or require guarantees. If further data shows diverse, specific comments and real follower accounts, reassess upward." }

Text: Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / information-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "User asks 'Wie lange hält so eine Behandlung?' (How long does such a treatment last?) — seeking practical information about the service; indicates topical interest and potential purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single visible comment in German asking about treatment duration. This is consistent with genuine audience engagement: the comment is content-specific, conversational, and not promotional or generic (which lowers the likelihood of it being fake). Fakeness is therefore low (score 10) with reasonably high confidence. However, the sample is extremely small (one comment), so this limited data gives only weak evidence of reliable, broad engagement. For advertising feasibility: the presence of a topical question is a positive signal (shows interest and potential intent), but overall comment volume and variety are insufficient to conclude strong authentic engagement or community activity. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: review total comment volume across multiple posts, like/comment ratio, commenters' profile authenticity (accounts' age, follower counts, posting history), timing/distribution of comments, and check for additional signs of inorganic engagement (repeated short generic comments, high emoji-only replies, or mass tagging). Based on the single comment, treat the post as tentatively positive but require more data to make a confident ad-buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user testimonial / personal result", "count": 1, "purpose": "Report personal experience (claims product effect after 5–6 days) and provide positive social proof/endorsement" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment reads as a short, positive testimonial: \"Am 5., 6. Tag ist dann auch bei die Wirkung voll da. 🙌\" — i.e. the effect is fully present by day 5–6. Characteristics supporting authenticity: informal phrasing, an emoji, a specific timeframe, and a minor grammatical slip ('bei die' instead of standard 'bei dir' or 'ist die') consistent with a spontaneous user remark. Characteristics that would raise suspicion if repeated across many comments (not present here): identical phrasing, overly promotional language, or obvious bot patterns. Because there is only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Practical recommendation: gather a larger set of comments and inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), look for repeated phrases, timing patterns, and compare like-to-comment ratios. Based on this single comment alone: it appears more likely genuine than staged (hence a relatively low fakeness score), but confidence is limited. For ad-buy decisions, do not rely on this lone comment — require broader engagement and profile checks before proceeding." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / product inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks opinion about a fast-acting BTX product (mentions Korean example) — user interest in product efficacy and recommendations; aims to start a discussion and gather peer feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a direct, specific question in German about a fast-acting BTX product and cites 'Korean' as an example. Its content and casual phrasing suggest a genuine user inquiry rather than automated or mass-produced text. This indicates at least some real audience interest in cosmetic/aesthetic products and fast results. However, one comment provides very limited evidence: engagement volume is too small to judge overall audience activity or authenticity for advertising decisions. There are no obvious bot patterns (generic praise, emojis, repeated phrases, links), but also no clear indicators of a highly engaged community (no follow-up replies, likes shown). For advertising feasibility: positive sign that followers ask product-specific questions, but overall signal is weak. Recommended next steps before purchasing ad space: review a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, measure comment-to-follower ratio and reply speed, check follower demographics and past ad performance, and ensure compliance with medical/advertising regulations for BTX-related promotions. Note: because BTX likely refers to a medical/cosmetic treatment, additional legal and ethical vetting is required." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / personal experience", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks information and reassurance, compares personal outcomes after cosmetic surgery, invites a response and discussion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a genuine-looking, specific question about a cosmetic procedure (brow lift/forehead work) and reports the commenter’s personal experience. It appears authentic (not promotional or generic), aimed at getting information or reassurance from the influencer. This indicates niche, topical engagement relevant to beauty/cosmetic content — a positive signal for advertisers targeting that audience. However, this assessment is based on only one comment; sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For a reliable advertising-feasibility decision, analyze a larger set of comments, reply patterns, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. bots), overall engagement rate, and follower authenticity." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "question / patient concern", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks advice/experience about a medical/aesthetic side effect (skin sagging around the eye after frown-line treatment). Expresses worry and requests reassurance or solutions; drives genuine engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a conversational, context-specific question in German with informal spelling ('irgwndwas'), asking whether anything can be done to prevent sagging of eyelid/eye-area skin after a 'Zornesfalten' (frown-line) treatment. That specificity and informal tone make it likely organic (low fakeness). It indicates an engaged follower interested in treatment outcomes and safety — useful for an aesthetic/medical influencer or brand because it shows audience relevance. However, one comment is an extremely small sample: you cannot reliably judge overall comment authenticity, engagement quality, or audience sentiment from this alone. For advertising feasibility this is moderately positive (real questions = potential customers), but you should request a larger sample of comments, reply rates, like counts, follower quality metrics, and whether the influencer responds with professional, compliant guidance. Also consider regulatory/medical advertising risks given the nature of the question (medical claims, safety)." }

Text: Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment and social approval; likely to show appreciation for the creators (increases perceived social proof and rapport)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Goldene Hände bei euch beiden , approved 🥰💓\" reads as a genuine, informal compliment directed at both people in the post. Signals of authenticity: personalized phrasing (\"bei euch beiden\"), casual tone, and use of emoji. Fakeness is unlikely but not impossible — with only one comment and no metadata (commenter profile, account age, follower count, timing, repetition across posts) the assessment is limited. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single comment provides a small positive signal about audience sentiment but is insufficient to determine real engagement quality or audience authenticity. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check commenter profiles for real accounts vs bots, measure comment-to-follower ratio, look for repetitive/templated comments, and examine comment likes and reply behavior to gauge genuine interaction." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval (social proof). Low informational value — could be organic praise or generic/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is present: five fire emojis. This is ambiguous — emoji-only comments are common from real followers as quick positive reactions but are also frequently produced by engagement pods or bots. With one short comment there is very little signal about audience intent, product interest, or authenticity. For advertising-feasibility decisions this set of comments provides weak evidence: lack of substantive feedback, no questions, no tagged users, and no diversity of commenters reduce confidence in genuine engagement. Recommended next steps: obtain full comment set (timestamps and commenter profiles), overall post metrics (likes, saves, shares), follower quality checks (profile completeness, follower-to-following ratios, recent activity), and check for repeated identical comments across posts. Based on the current single-comment sample, I rate the comments as moderately suspicious but with low confidence and consider the post low-value as proof of authentic engagement for ad buy decisions." }

Text: Was würde diese Behandlung im Set den kosten?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "pricing inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "User asks about cost of a treatment/package — commercial intent and interest in booking or purchase." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a straightforward, natural-looking question in German asking about the price of a treatment set. This indicates genuine commercial interest from at least one user (potential lead), not typical of bot/spam behavior. However, one comment is insufficient to judge the overall authenticity or engagement quality of the influencer's audience. For an advertising purchase decision, this is a positive signal (real user interest) but weak evidence on its own. Recommended next steps: review more comments for variety and timing patterns, check commenter profiles for real accounts, examine like-to-comment ratios and reply behavior from the influencer, and look for repeated templated comments or suspicious accounts to better assess audience quality before buying ad space." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive reaction / lightweight engagement — expresses support or liking but provides no substantive endorsement or information. Often used by genuine followers, engagement pods, or automated/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided is an emoji-only response (three heart emojis). Emoji-only comments are low-information: they show positive sentiment but do not confirm genuine interest in a product or topic. Such comments are common from real followers, casual viewers, engagement pods, and automated accounts, so they are ambiguous indicators of authentic engagement. Given only this comment, I rate the likelihood of inauthenticity moderately high (60/100) because short emoji comments are frequently used in bulk by bots or purchased engagement; however confidence is limited by the tiny sample. For advertising decisions this comment adds minimal persuasive value — it boosts visible engagement counts but does not serve as testimonial, question, or evidence of purchase intent. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (look for substantive praise, questions, or product mentions), inspect commenter profiles for follower counts/activity patterns, check timing patterns (many similar comments in short time windows), and compare comment-to-like ratios and historical engagement trends before making a buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Booking intent / conversion comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses intent to make an appointment and convert to a paying customer; shows enthusiasm and direct interest in the service." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads as a genuine, enthusiastic booking-intent message: it uses an emoji, personal phrasing ('bei dir'), a near-term timeframe ('zeitnah'), and emphatic punctuation ('!!!!'), all of which are typical of real followers who plan to convert. Likely authenticity is high (low fakeness score) given the personal language and specificity. However, this assessment is limited by having only one comment: it cannot reveal account-level patterns (repeated copy-paste comments, many similar comments, commenter account quality, timing patterns) that would indicate coordinated or fake engagement. For advertising feasibility this comment is a positive signal—shows real conversion potential—but you should analyze a larger sample (unique commenter IDs, comment repetition, follower-to-comment ratio, commenter account age/activity) before making a buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personalized positive / ambiguous compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "show support/engagement directed at the influencer; uses emojis to express affection/approval but message wording is ambiguous, making it low-information" } ], "interpretation": "Comment translation and content: the German comment 'Bei dir fühlt man auch nichts 🥰💁🏻‍♀️' roughly translates to 'With you one also feels nothing' (phrasing is odd) accompanied by affectionate and sassy emojis. Classification: a short, personalized reply that appears intended to engage or show support rather than to provide substantive feedback. Fakeness assessment: likely genuine (low fakeness score) because it addresses the poster directly and uses natural, somewhat imperfect phrasing plus emojis; however, with only one comment sample the confidence is moderate. Implications for advertising feasibility: a single personalized comment is positive but provides very limited evidence about audience quality or authenticity. It does not indicate meaningful conversation, purchase intent, or a community of engaged followers. Recommended next steps before buying ads or partnerships: analyze volume and variety of comments across multiple posts, check commenter profiles for real accounts vs. bots, review comment timestamps for inorganic clustering, and compare comment-to-follower and like-to-follower ratios. Given the single ambiguous supportive comment, I assign a cautious mid-low overall suitability score for advertising (45) with moderate-low confidence; more data is needed for a reliable decision." }

Text: Botox in den trapezius…😳

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Reaction/Observation", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise/noticing a possible cosmetic procedure (Botox in the trapezius), prompt discussion or clarification." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment was provided: \"Botox in den trapezius…😳\". The comment reads as a genuine, spontaneous reaction expressing surprise and possibly mild judgment or curiosity about a cosmetic procedure. There are no clear markers of automation (no repetitive phrasing, generic praise, or promotional language); the emoji and language suggest a human responder. Because the sample is extremely small (one comment), this assessment is limited: fakeness is judged low (10/100) but with moderate confidence (60) due to lack of additional context. For advertising/purchase decisions this single comment offers almost no reliable signal about audience quality or engagement authenticity. Recommended next steps before deciding: analyze a larger set of recent comments, commenter profiles (real vs. bot indicators), engagement rates vs. follower count, comment diversity and timing, and sentiment distribution. Given current evidence, assign a cautious mid-low overall suitability score (45/100) with low-medium confidence (40/100); do not use this single comment as a basis for an ad buy." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only / reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or quick positive reaction; low-effort engagement that increases visible comment count but provides no substantive feedback or social proof." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three laughing emojis (😂😂😂). An emoji-only reaction is common and can be from a genuine follower casually engaging or from low-effort/bot accounts used to inflate activity. With just this single, content-free comment there is very limited signal: it shows some engagement but no product mention, purchase intent, detailed praise, or question that would be useful for evaluating influencer effectiveness for advertising. The moderate fakeness score reflects that short emoji comments are often organic but also frequently appear in inorganic engagement patterns; confidence is low because one comment is insufficient to detect patterns. Overall suitability for advertising is low based on this data alone — you need a higher volume of substantive comments, diverse commenter profiles, and consistent interaction (questions, testimonials, tagging, saved posts) to consider the audience responsive and authentic. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments across recent posts (50–200), inspect commenter profiles for real-account signals (profile photos, posts, followers, varied activity), check repetition of identical short comments across many posts, compare comment and like ratios, and examine timelines for bursty patterns indicative of engagement pods or purchased comments." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (laughing emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; low-effort positive engagement that signals attention but conveys little substantive sentiment. Can be used by genuine users to react quickly or by bots/engagement farms to inflate activity." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short emoji comment (\"😂😂😂\") is provided, which severely limits analysis. Emoji reactions are common, low-effort engagements that can be genuine expressions of amusement or generic filler from inauthentic accounts. With just this one example there is substantial uncertainty: I estimate a moderate chance the comment is genuine (hence a fakeness score around 40) but my confidence is low. For influencer advertising decisions this evidence is insufficient. Recommendations: obtain a larger sample of comments (content, timestamps), check commenter profiles for follower counts, posting history and avatar authenticity, look for repeated/patterned comments across posts, compare comment-to-follower ratios and comment likes, and analyze overall engagement quality (questions, tagged friends, meaningful replies). Do not base an ad buy on this single emoji interaction; request more comprehensive engagement and audience authenticity data before proceeding." }

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": 78, "fakeness_confidence": 62, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Promotional / Branded jingle (likely bot/brand copy)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Promote product by repeating brand slogan/jingle — appears intended to advertise Zott Sahnejoghurt rather than express an organic reaction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is verbatim marketing copy (a jingle mentioning 'Zott Sahnejoghurt') and reads like promotional text rather than an authentic user reaction. That pattern suggests it may be posted by a brand account, a hired promoter, or an automated/spam account. As a result, this comment provides low-quality evidence of genuine audience engagement; it does not indicate personal endorsement or meaningful conversation. For advertising-buy decisions, treat engagement from these comments as weak signal. Recommend further checks before purchase: sample many more comments, inspect commenter profiles (account age, posting behavior, follower makeup), timing of comments, replies, likes on comments, overall follower authenticity, and request the influencer's audience/insights data. If many comments are similar promotional copies, consider this an indicator of inorganic engagement and proceed with caution." }

Text: Das ist beeindruckend 👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive sentiment / social proof — expresses admiration but contains no product-specific detail or call-to-action; could be genuine follower engagement or a low-effort bot comment." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single visible comment: 'Das ist beeindruckend 👏' (German for 'That's impressive'). It is positive but very generic. With only one short, non-specific compliment, authenticity is ambiguous — generic praise is commonly left by both real users and automated/paid-comment services. Because the sample is so small, confidence in any authenticity judgment is low. For ad-buy decisions this comment provides almost no actionable signal: it shows friendliness/approval but no product interest, no questions, no tagging, and no conversational thread. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: analyze total comment volume and diversity across multiple posts, check commenter account credibility (profiles, follower counts, posting history), look at like-to-comment ratios and engagement rate relative to follower count, check for repeated identical comments across posts, and inspect comment timestamps for bursts. Based on this single comment alone I rate the comments' value for ad-feasibility low (30/100) and flag high uncertainty — gather more data." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal engagement / content reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Referencing post content (the slogan on a Jägermeister bottle) while adding a personal disclosure (doesn't drink alcohol); signals genuine, context-specific engagement rather than generic spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears authentic: it references specific content (a slogan on a Jägermeister bottle) and includes a personal disclosure ('I don't drink alcohol'), which is unlikely for automated/generic bots. This indicates at least one real follower interacting meaningfully. However, this is a single data point — overall comment volume and diversity are missing, so it is not possible to judge community health or broad authenticity. For advertising feasibility, this isolated comment suggests some contextual engagement but does not demonstrate strong or relevant audience interest (the commenter explicitly disclaims using alcohol). Recommendation: examine total comment count, like-to-comment ratio, commenter profiles, repeat/comment patterning, and timing to form a reliable advertising decision." }

Text: All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise and social bonding — expresses enjoyment/support of post (emoji reaction: laughter + heart)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (German: \"All die Monatsfeiern haben wirklich was gebracht 😂❤️\") is a brief, positive reaction likely from a real follower: casual language, contextual reference, and emojis suggest authentic engagement rather than generic marketing copy. However, this is only one data point — there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For ad-buy decisions this comment is mildly positive signal but not persuasive on its own. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (volume, diversity of phrasing), inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity, mutuals), check for repeated/similar comments across posts (bot pattern), and compare comment-to-like ratio and historical engagement consistency before making purchasing decisions." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji‑rich brief positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval and increase visible engagement (short, lightweight interaction)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('🔥🔥🔥😂😂 love it') is a short, emoji-heavy positive reaction. This type commonly appears from genuine followers reacting quickly, but it is also frequently produced by bots or low-effort engagement accounts because it contains no specific reference to the post content. Given only one comment sample, the fakeness assessment is uncertain — I estimate moderate likelihood of being organic (fakeness score 40) but with only medium confidence (50). For advertising feasibility the data is insufficient: a lone generic positive comment does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest or authenticity. I recommend examining more comments and commenter profiles (account age, activity, follower/following ratio, comment repetition across posts, timing patterns) and calculating engagement rate and audience demographics before deciding on ad spend. Current overall suitability for advertising based solely on this comment is low–moderate (45) with low–medium confidence (40) due to limited input." }

Text: Was geht 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "casual social / emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Light engagement: greeting/banter and expressing amusement; reinforces social connection but provides little commercial signal." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment is provided: \"Was geht 😂😂😂\". This is a brief, emoji-rich conversational/colloquial reply that reads as organic audience interaction rather than a templated or promotional message. With a single data point there is very limited evidence either for or against coordinated/fake activity — the comment itself scores low on the fakeness scale (10) but confidence is modest because sample size is tiny. For advertising feasibility this single comment gives little positive signal: it shows casual engagement but no intent to purchase, no product-related discussion, no questions, and no indicators of a high-quality, targeted audience. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments (look for repetition, timing bursts, identical phrasing, comment-to-like ratios), inspect commenter accounts for authenticity (profile age, follower counts, posting behavior), and compute engagement rate vs. follower count before deciding on ad spend. If many comments similar to this one dominate, that suggests low commercial intent and weak conversion signals." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "technical/insider", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide practical instructions and demonstrate domain expertise (firefighting/hydrant/hose deployment)" }, { "type": "humorous/emotive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Lighten tone and signal rapport or friendliness (emoji usage '😂')" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is niche and appears authentic: it gives specific, technical instructions about water supply and hose deployment (references to 'Unterflurhydrant', 'Verteiler', 'C-leitung', 'Leiterwand'), then adds a laughing emoji which suggests a jocular or familiar tone rather than spam. This pattern (detailed domain language + emoji) is inconsistent with generic bot or purchased comments, so fakeness is low (score ~10). However, the sample size is one comment; that limits confidence about the comment section overall. For advertising feasibility: this comment indicates a specialized, possibly professional or hobbyist audience engagement rather than broad consumer interest. That lowers immediate suitability for general-brand ads unless the product/service targets that niche. Overall feasibility score is modest (35) because low volume/contextual engagement and unclear follower quality—further analysis needed (full comment sample, like/comment ratios, follower authenticity, post reach, and content alignment) before an ad purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "poetic/literary reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Aesthetic expression — to evoke mood, show cultural literacy or personality, and engage the poster with a literary remark" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a line from Goethe's 'Erlkönig' in German ('Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind?'), which reads as a genuine, context-specific, culturally literate remark rather than generic spam or a transactional promotional message. Fakeness is scored low (10) because the content is specific and not formulaic; confidence is moderate (65) because assessment is based on one comment without commenter metadata (account age, activity, follower relationships) or broader comment patterns. For influencer advertising decisions this comment provides minimal evidence of authentic, scalable engagement — it's positive from a brand-safety/aesthetic perspective but insufficient to judge audience quality or conversion potential. Recommend requesting a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, comment timestamps, and engagement metrics (likes per comment, reply threads) before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "supportive / positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses emotional support / validation of the post (praise, encouragement)" } ], "interpretation": "Sample size: single comment only. The comment \"Das war alles andere als sinnlos 💛\" reads as a genuine, personally phrased supportive reaction (emotional validation) rather than a generic promotional or bot-like message. The use of a full short sentence in German and an emoji increases perceived authenticity. Given only one comment, however, this is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or comment authenticity for advertising decisions. Recommendation: analyze a larger set (50–200 recent comments), check commenter profiles for real accounts (profile pictures, posting history, follower/following ratios), look for repetitive phrasing or identical comments across posts, examine comment timing patterns, and compare comment-to-like ratios. Current assessment: low likelihood this single comment is fake, but confidence is moderate and overall suitability for ad purchase cannot be concluded from this lone example." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "skeptical / humorous", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses light-hearted skepticism about the creator's authenticity (questions use of a teleprompter), engages playfully and invites discussion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Wer beweist, dass da kein Teleprompter war? 😂') is a natural-looking, conversational remark with an emoji and a pointed but playful skepticism. It reads like an organic audience reaction rather than a generic promotional or bot-like comment (no hashtags, no calls-to-action, no repetitive praise). Fakeness risk is low (score 10) given the personalized tone, but confidence is limited because this is only one comment. For ad-buy decisions: this shows real engagement and some critical engagement from followers, which can be positive (authentic audience) but also indicates the audience will notice staged or inauthentic content. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments across recent posts to confirm overall audience sentiment and check for patterns of repetitive or inorganic-looking comments before finalizing purchase." }

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": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "insider-humorous / nostalgic", "count": 1, "purpose": "Personal anecdote/inside joke referencing school memory (Latin declension) to show identification with the post and add lighthearted engagement ('IYKYK' + emoji)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is written in natural German, contains a concrete recall (listing Latin declension endings), an abbreviation ('IYKYK') and an emoji — all signs of a genuine human, context-aware response rather than a bot or paid spam. There are no promotional links, generic praise, repeated phrases or account-tagging that would suggest inauthenticity. However, this is only one comment: the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall authenticity or engagement quality of the influencer's audience. For advertising-feasibility decisions I recommend reviewing a larger sample (multiple posts, number of unique commenters, timestamps, reply threads, likes per comment, and follower-to-engagement ratios) before committing. Based on this single data point the comments look organic (low fakeness) but the low volume and single-language niche comment limit confidence and lower the overall suitability score for ad purchase without further analysis." }

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": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Anecdotal / personal memory", "count": 1, "purpose": "User shares a remembered phrase or thought (mentions having read it >30 years ago) to connect personally with the post." }, { "type": "Quoted / poetic text (poorly translated / garbled)", "count": 1, "purpose": "User posts a passage or line that reads like a rhyme/quote; English appears awkward or machine-translated, suggesting they reproduce something remembered rather than composing a standard engagement comment." }, { "type": "Emotional reaction / engagement (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Emojis (🤐, 🤯) indicate emotional response—surprise/secret—serving to express reaction and drive lightweight engagement rather than promotional intent." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears idiosyncratic and likely genuine rather than bot-generated: it contains a mix of German and awkward English, a personal remark about having read the phrase for 30+ years, and expressive emojis. The English segment is grammatically odd and possibly a literal translation of a rhyme or line, which reduces the likelihood of a generic spam/bot template. Purpose is mostly personal expression/nostalgia and light engagement, not promotion or solicitation. For advertiser decisions this comment signals low-value engagement (not brand-related or conversion-oriented) but authentic-feeling audience interaction. Caveats: one comment is a very small sample—further analysis across many comments, comment timing, commenter profiles, and like counts is needed to draw robust conclusions. Potential risk: fragment mentions a girl and behind a door in awkward phrasing which could be misread as inappropriate; review context before using post in brand-safe ad placements." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Nostalgic/humorous reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express recognition and nostalgia, react humorously to the content to show engagement and personal connection" } ], "interpretation": "The single visible comment ('Werbespots aus den 90ern… einfach ins Gehirn gebrannt 😂') is a natural, on-topic reaction expressing nostalgia and amusement. It reads like genuine audience engagement (not promotional or bot-like): short, context-specific, uses emoji and colloquial phrasing. Fakeness risk is low based on content and tone, but this assessment is limited by the extremely small sample size (only one comment). For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment is a mild positive signal—it indicates that at least part of the audience emotionally connects with retro content—but provides no evidence about overall engagement volume, audience demographics, conversion intent, or authenticity at scale. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments, like counts, follower quality, engagement rate, comment diversity, timing patterns, and any repeated/promotional comment templates to better judge audience authenticity and suitability for ad spend." }

Text: Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "engagement / request", "count": 1, "purpose": "Playful expression of interest and request to try/purchase (light promotional intent; signals intent to engage or buy)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Einmal bitte Full Freeze 😂🙋🏼‍♀️' reads as an organic, playful request — the user is asking for a product/service called 'Full Freeze' and uses emoji to convey casual enthusiasm. There are no clear bot or spam markers (no generic praise, no links, natural language and emojis). However, assessment is limited by having only one comment and no metadata (commenter profile, account age, follower count, posting patterns, timestamps, or other comments). Given the limited sample, fakeness is assessed as low (score 10) but with moderate uncertainty. For influencer advertising feasibility this comment is a mildly positive signal of real interest, but it is insufficient alone to judge overall audience quality. Recommended next checks before purchasing ads: examine commenter profiles for authenticity, distribution of comments across multiple posts, like-to-comment ratios, repetition of identical comments (indicative of bots), follower engagement metrics, and demographic alignment with the campaign." }

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": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Sarcastic / humorous personal anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "Entertainment, engagement, social signaling (shows attitude toward cosmetic procedures and luxury spending)." }, { "type": "Provocative / trolling (mild)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Stir reaction and provoke likes/replies through exaggerated statements and self-contradictory bragging." }, { "type": "Bot / spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "No evidence of automated or promotional content in the provided comment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a human-sounding, sarcastic remark about botox that doubles as a humorous personal anecdote and mild provocation. Language use, emoji choice, and the culturally specific joke make it unlikely to be bot-generated (low fakeness). As a signal for advertising feasibility, this comment shows engaged, opinionated followers who react with personality — useful if the brand aligns with beauty, cosmetic procedures, or luxury self-expression. However, there is only one comment provided, so volume and representativeness are missing. Risk considerations: the tone is polarizing (bragging about visible cosmetic alteration), which may be unsuitable for conservative or family-oriented brands and may attract controversy. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments, overall engagement rates, follower quality metrics, and sentiment distribution before making an ad-buy decision." }