Job: @beauteactive

Text: Larbin

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative/abusive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Insult/provocation — expresses dislike or personal attack toward the poster (single-word Russian insult 'Larbin')." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single short Russian-language comment: 'Larbin' (an insulting term meaning 'lackey'/'toady'). This appears to be a genuine negative/trolling remark rather than promotional or bot-like content; its brevity and emotional tone suggest a human critic or troll account. Given only one comment, the dataset is insufficient to assess overall audience sentiment, engagement quality, or the presence of coordinated/fake comments. Fakeness is judged low (15) with moderate confidence because the comment lacks common bot patterns (repeated phrases, links, emojis, generic praise), but a single-item sample limits certainty. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this isolated negative comment alone is not a strong disqualifier, but you should obtain a larger sample of comments, engagement metrics (likes, comment-to-follower ratio), follower authenticity checks, and sentiment distribution before proceeding." }

Text: ahah j’adore 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive reaction (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "express enjoyment/approval and convey positive emotional reaction; low informational or conversational value" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: 'ahah j’adore 😂'. It appears to be a genuine, casual positive reaction (laughter + affection). With this single data point there is very limited evidence to judge audience authenticity or engagement quality—short emoji-forward comments are common from real followers but are also patterns that low-effort bot or engagement-farm accounts can mimic. For advertising feasibility this is weak signal: it shows positive sentiment but no depth (no product-specific questions, no tagging, no purchase intent). Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, distribution of comment types, like-to-comment ratio, follower quality, comment timestamps, and conversation threads before making an ad buy decision." }

Text: @youcefkanouni moi à chaque sortie 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 90, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Mention/tag + reaction (relatable/emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tag a friend to share the post; express personal relatability and amusement; boost engagement/visibility through social tagging." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“@youcefkanouni moi à chaque sortie 😂😂” — French for “me at every outing”) is a natural, conversational remark: the commenter tags a friend and uses emojis to show amusement and personal relatability. This pattern is typical of organic audience engagement rather than promotional or bot-like behavior. Given only one comment in the sample, conclusions are limited: the comment suggests genuine, engaged followers, but one instance is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or community quality. For ad-buy decisions, this is a small positive signal (real, relatable engagement), but you should analyze a larger sample of comments (variety of commenters, reply rate, timestamps, repetitive/templated text) and cross-check likes, follower quality, and engagement rate before deciding." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction with very low informational value; can serve as engagement signal but may also be generic/bot-driven or paid 'appearance' engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Analysis limited by a single comment: five '😂' emojis. Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous — they indicate some engagement but provide little evidence of genuine interest, purchase intent, or audience alignment. Such comments can be from real followers reacting emotionally, from casual browsers, or from automated/generic accounts used to inflate visible activity. Given this single datum, I rate the fakeness slightly above neutral (55/100) but with low confidence (30/100). For advertising feasibility I assign a cautious score (40/100) with low confidence (25/100). Recommended next steps before any ad buy: collect a larger comment sample across multiple recent posts; review commenter profiles for authenticity (profile age, post history, follower counts, repetition across posts); compare likes-to-comments ratio and growth patterns; check for repetitive generic comments across posts. These checks will greatly improve confidence in assessing audience quality and ad suitability." }

Text: J’espère que t’as au moins 70% de la paie mdr

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal / joking reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and make a light, informal remark about the creator's pay; engages the poster in a conversational, non-promotional way." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment — \"J’espère que t’as au moins 70% de la paie mdr\" — reads as an authentic, informal reaction from a follower (colloquial French, 'mdr' = laughing). Sentiment is mildly humorous/teasing and references the creator's payment or earnings; it does not appear promotional, automated, or spammy. Fakeness risk is low given the natural language and context, but confidence is limited because this is only one comment. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment alone is insufficient: it shows some follower familiarity and casual engagement, but there is no evidence here of broad, high-quality audience interaction (no multiple comments, no questions, no calls-for-action, no clear brand interest). Recommend analyzing more comments, comment diversity, like-to-comment ratios, follower authenticity signals, and engagement over multiple posts before making ad-buy decisions." }

Text: Exploitage !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short enthusiastic/ambiguous single-word comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reaction / engagement signalling or brief commentary; could be meant as praise, hype, or a quick emotional reaction. Also possibly noise/spam when repeated across posts." } ], "interpretation": "Dataset is a single comment: \"Exploitage !\". With only one short, ambiguous comment it's difficult to draw firm conclusions. The word appears nonstandard (possibly French-derived or a misspelling) and reads as an exclamation — likely intended as an enthusiastic reaction or shorthand praise, but could also be sarcastic or critical depending on context. Because short single-word comments are commonly produced both by real users (quick encouragement) and by coordinated/bot activity (low-effort engagement), I assign a moderate-low fakeness score (30) with low confidence (30). For advertising feasibility the available signal is very weak; a single ambiguous comment provides little evidence of a genuine, engaged audience, so overall suitability is rated low-moderate (40) with low confidence (25). Recommendation: evaluate a larger sample of comments (look for substantive, specific feedback), check commenter account quality (profile completeness, posting history, follower/following ratio), frequency of identical short comments across multiple posts, timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios before making an ad buy decision." }

Text: C’est ou ?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question — location inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "A user asks where the photo/video was taken; signals genuine interest or curiosity and attempts to engage with the poster." } ], "interpretation": "There is only one comment provided: \"C’est ou ?\" (\"Where is this?\"). This is a straightforward, organic-seeming question about location and does not show hallmarks of automated or purchased engagement (no generic praise, emoji-only comment, or promotional content). Given the single data point, fakeness is assessed low (10/100) with moderate-to-high confidence that this specific comment is genuine. However, the sample size is too small to draw robust conclusions about the overall authenticity or quality of the influencer's comment section. For advertising feasibility: a single genuine question indicates some viewer interest but provides no evidence of sustained, high-quality engagement or community strength. I recommend collecting a larger sample of recent comments, measuring comment-to-follower ratio, diversity of commenters, and checking for repetitive or copy/paste comments before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive emotional reaction; low-effort engagement, no substantive feedback or intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (two laughing emojis) is a brief emotional reaction that provides very little information about audience quality or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers as casual engagement but are also easy for bots or low-effort accounts to produce, so authenticity is ambiguous. With only one such comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or the influencer's ability to drive conversions. For advertising decisions, this indicates weak qualitative engagement; recommend collecting more comments and metrics (comment diversity, depth, repeat commenters, follower-to-engagement ratio, timestamps and account metadata) before proceeding. Current quick assessment: low quality signal for ad purchase." }

Text: On en parle de la troisième personne qui filme la vidéo

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "observational/question", "count": 1, "purpose": "A viewer points out or asks about a production detail (the third person filming). Signals attention to content and production rather than promotional intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: 'On en parle de la troisième personne qui filme la vidéo' (Are we talking about the third person who is filming the video?). This comment reads as organic, context-specific, and not promotional or generic, so it has a low likelihood of being fake (estimated fakeness 10/100, confidence 70%). However, assessment confidence is limited by the extremely small sample size. With one context-aware comment we see some genuine engagement, but this is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or influencer reliability for advertising. For an ad-buy decision, request a larger comment sample and additional metrics: comment volume and diversity, ratio of generic/greeting comments (e.g., 'Nice', emojis), repeated messages, account age and follower distributions of commenters, timestamps (burst patterns), like-to-comment ratio, and prior sponsored post performance. If a substantial share (>40%) of comments are generic/repetitive or originate from low-quality accounts, raise the fakeness concern. Current overall suitability for advertising is moderate-low (45/100) with limited confidence (45/100) until more data is provided." }

Text: Maintenant je veux voir la vidéo moi 😂👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Direct engagement / curiosity", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses interest/excitement and requests more content (asks to see the video); functions as engagement that can boost reach and signals viewer anticipation." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Maintenant je veux voir la vidéo moi 😂👏\" reads as a genuine, informal reaction from a follower: it expresses eagerness to see a promised or implied video and adds emoji-based positive sentiment. This type of comment typically indicates organic audience interest and serves as lightweight social proof. However, analysis is severely limited by having only one comment: there is no pattern data (repeated phrasing, timing, account metadata) to detect bot-like behaviour or coordinated commenting. The low fakeness score reflects that the language and content are natural and context-specific, but confidence is moderate due to the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility, a single engaged comment is a positive sign of some real engagement but insufficient to judge scale, consistency, audience quality, or conversion potential. Recommend obtaining more data: total comments, like-to-comment ratio, commenter profiles, comment timestamps, and historical engagement trends before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: Je pense surtout à la personne qui filme la deuxième personne qui filme l’autre influenceuse

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Observational / meta-comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Calls attention to the production setup (who is filming whom), highlighting meta layers of content creation." }, { "type": "Critical / skeptical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Implicitly criticizes or mocks staged/content-that-feels-inauthentic; signals doubt about authenticity." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Je pense surtout à la personne qui filme la deuxième personne qui filme l’autre influenceuse' — 'I'm mostly thinking about the person who films the second person who films the other influencer') is an observational and slightly skeptical remark about how staged the content appears. It reads as an organic, individual reaction rather than a generic compliment or obvious bot/spam message, so measured fakeness is low (score 15). The commenter is pointing out production layers and implicitly questioning authenticity, which can indicate at least some portion of the audience is critical of staged behavior. For advertising decisions this is a cautionary flag: skeptical followers may reduce ad effectiveness if the influencer appears overly manufactured. However, this assessment is based on a single comment — sample size is too small to generalize. I recommend reviewing a larger set of comments, like sentiment distribution, recurring themes (authenticity vs. praise), comment-to-like ratio, and commenter profiles before making a buying decision." }

Text: 💩💩💩

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative / trolling emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressing disapproval, mockery or provocation; low informational value and likely intended to signal dislike or to provoke engagement rather than provide feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: three 'poop' emojis (💩💩💩). This is a short, negative, emoji-only reaction typical of trolling, a displeased follower, or a low-effort critic. It is unlikely to be a paid or sophisticated bot operation based on content alone, so I rate fakeness low (15/100) with moderate confidence (60%), but this judgment is limited by the tiny sample. For advertising-feasibility: one isolated negative emoji does not meaningfully reduce the influencer's suitability; I give a cautious positive overall score (70/100) with moderate-low confidence (50%) because there is no broader comment context, engagement rates, audience sentiment distribution, or account provenance to evaluate. Recommendation: before purchase, review a larger sample of comments (variety, timestamps, language patterns), follower-to-engagement ratios, presence of repetitive/templated replies, and account follower authenticity. If multiple similar negative comments appear or there is concentrated negative sentiment from real accounts, re-evaluate downward." }

Text: Je n'aime pas ce côté du : << m'as-tu vu ? >>

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative/critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express dislike/critique of poster's perceived attention-seeking ('m'as-tu vu?')" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment is a direct, negative reaction in French indicating dislike of a perceived 'look-at-me' attitude. This looks organic (natural language, specific criticism) rather than bot-like or promotional, so fakeness is low. However, a single comment is an extremely small sample and cannot reliably represent overall audience sentiment or engagement quality. For advertising feasibility: current evidence is insufficient and slightly cautionary — the commenter shows skepticism that could reflect a portion of the audience sensitive to overt self-promotion. Recommendation: analyze a larger set of recent posts for volume, sentiment distribution, engagement rates, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. bots), and comment-to-follower ratios before making a buy decision. If broader comments show similar authentic criticism, consider aligning creative direction to be less 'showy' or choose a different influencer." }

Text: Trop drôle

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive / generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or praise (engagement signal). Could be genuine reaction to humorous content or a generic one-word reply used in engagement pods or by low-effort accounts/bots." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: \"Trop drôle\" (\"So funny\"). This is a short, positive, and ambiguous reaction. Advantages: it signals that at least one viewer found the content amusing and it contributes to visible engagement. Limitations: a single short comment provides almost no evidence about audience quality or authenticity. Such comments are common from real followers but are also typical of automated/bot replies or coordinated engagement (comment pods) because they are low-effort and language-neutral praise.\n\nFakeness assessment rationale: given the brevity and generic nature of the comment, there is a non-trivial chance it is not a high-quality organic reply. I estimate moderate-low fakeness (35/100) but with low confidence (30/100) because of the extremely small sample size.\n\nAdvertising/feasibility assessment rationale: with only this single comment, it is not possible to judge whether the influencer has a genuine, engaged audience suitable for ads. The overall feasibility score is therefore cautious (45/100) with low confidence (25/100). Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, like counts and timestamps, commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history, profile photos/bios), like-to-comment ratios, and presence of varied, substantive comments. Also check for repeated phrases across comments, unnatural comment timing bursts, and follower growth patterns. Those data points are needed to make a reliable decision about buying advertising on this influencer's platform." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter — lightweight engagement that signals a positive or entertained reaction but provides no substantive feedback or interest in product/service." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is six '😂' emojis. Emoji-only reactions are common, low-effort engagement: they increase visible engagement metrics but carry little signal about audience intent, purchase interest, or fit for advertising. Authenticity is ambiguous — repeated single-emoji comments can be genuine quick reactions from real followers or generated by low-effort bot/spam accounts; the pattern here (one comment) slightly favors a genuine casual reaction but is insufficient evidence. Overall this comment provides minimal actionable insight for ad buying. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments (volume, variety, specificity), check commenter account quality (followers, activity), engagement-to-follower ratio, comment timing patterns, and look for meaningful comments mentioning the product/category before deciding to purchase advertising on this influencer." }

Text: 😂😂😂trop bien

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji + short praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive approval and provide lightweight engagement (social proof/visibility boost)." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment \"😂😂😂trop bien\" reads as a brief, positive, emotionally expressive engagement typical of an organic follower: multiple laughing emojis plus informal French praise. Such short emoji-heavy comments are common and can be genuine, but they are also easily produced by bots or paid commenters, so I assign low-to-moderate fakeness risk (20/100) with moderate confidence. Because this is only one data point, it provides minimal evidence of meaningful audience interest or conversion potential. For advertising feasibility you need a larger sample: comment diversity, depth (questions, specifics), comment-to-follower ratio, timing patterns, and follower quality. Based on this lone comment the post shows basic positive engagement but insufficient signal to confidently recommend ad spend (overall score 45/100)." }

Text: Waaaaa je sais pas pourquoi mais je l’ai regardé au moins 20x 😅 la première j’ai essayé de la passer au microscope 😂 mais j’arrive pas à me focus dessus 😆

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine engaged reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enjoyment and repeated viewing of the content (positive engagement signal)." }, { "type": "Humorous/relatable anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "Uses humor and a small personal anecdote to connect socially with the creator and other viewers — encourages further engagement." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as authentic: it's specific, colloquial (French), uses emojis and a short anecdote about rewatching the post ~20 times and trying to 'pass it under a microscope' — which is unlikely to be generated by a generic bot. As a data point it signals genuine interest and repeat views, which are positive for ad placement. However, it is only one comment: this sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall authenticity or quality of the post's comment section. For a reliable advertising-feasibility decision, review a larger set of comments, commenter account quality (followers, activity history), like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns (many comments clustered quickly), and repeated/generic phrasing across comments. Tentatively: promising engagement signal but insufficient evidence to approve purchase on this basis alone." }

Text: Non mais je suis fan fan fan 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive praise / admiration", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm and support for the creator (social proof, emotional endorsement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided ("Non mais je suis fan fan fan 😍") is an enthusiastic, short, emoji-containing message typical of genuine fans. Indicators of authenticity: repetition of 'fan', an emoji expressing affection, and natural phrasing in French. Indicators against authenticity: brevity and generic wording make it plausible as a templated or low-effort comment used by bots or comment farms. Given only one comment sample, the ability to judge overall comment authenticity and audience quality is very limited. For advertising decisions, this single positive comment is mildly encouraging but insufficient evidence of a real, engaged community. Recommend examining a larger set of comments, commenter account histories (age, follower counts, posting behavior), timing/distribution of comments, likes on the comment, and overall engagement metrics (ER, follower-to-like ratio) before committing to ad spend." }

Text: 😂😂 Excellent

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive (emoji + praise)", "count": 1, "purpose": "express approval/enthusiasm and provide quick engagement; functions as a lightweight social signal (boosts visible engagement). Could be genuine fan reaction or a low-effort/generic comment often produced by casual users or automated accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: '😂😂 Excellent'. Sentiment is clearly positive but signal value is low — it's a short, generic praise with emojis that doesn't provide context, conversation, or evidence of meaningful audience interest. Such comments commonly come from real casual followers but are also easy for bots or engagement farms to generate. Given the single data point, treat this as weak evidence of genuine engagement. For advertising buy decisions, this comment alone is insufficient: request a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity), time distribution, and engagement rates (likes, saves, shares) to better assess audience authenticity and campaign suitability. Recommended next steps: analyze multiple posts, look for substantive/unique comments, check for repeated phrases across commenters, and inspect commenter accounts for profile photos, posting history, and follower/following ratios." }

Text: Thanks for laugh sister 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/amusement (short friendly reaction from a follower/peer, not promotional)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Thanks for laugh sister 😂😂\" is a short, positive reaction expressing amusement. It reads like a genuine follower interaction (use of emojis, casual phrasing), though the slight grammatical oddity could indicate a non-native speaker rather than automation. With only one comment available, the sample is far too small to reliably judge overall authenticity or community quality. Fakeness suspicion is low-to-moderate (20%) mainly because many bots post short generic comments, but the emoji and relational tone reduce that likelihood; confidence in this fakeness estimate is limited (45%) due to lack of data. For advertising feasibility: this single comment neither supports nor disproves a valuable engaged audience. Overall suitability score of 30 reflects weak evidence of strong, authentic engagement from comments alone. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger set of comments for diversity and repetition, check commenter profiles (age, follower counts, account creation dates, profile photos), measure comment-to-follower and like-to-follower rates, review comment timing patterns and replies, and look for real conversations or questions that indicate active community interest." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick, low-effort expression of amusement and basic engagement; primarily increases visible interaction metrics but carries little informational or promotional value." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, repetitive emoji string (three laughing emojis). This is a low-information, low-effort engagement signal: it shows someone reacted but provides no context, endorsement, or conversation. Such comments are common from genuine followers as casual reactions, but they are also common in bot/spam patterns and engagement-farming (generic emojis scattered across many posts). Given only this one comment, there is insufficient evidence to conclude audience authenticity or depth of engagement. For advertising purchase decisions, this comment alone is weak evidence: it neither indicates targeted interest nor meaningful influencer-to-audience connection. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze the full set of recent comments for diversity and specificity, check commenter profiles for real accounts vs. throwaway/bot accounts, compute engagement rate (likes, comments) relative to follower count, inspect comment timing patterns (bursts vs organic spread), and review historical post comment content for repeated generic emojis or copy-paste replies. If many comments on this and other posts are similarly short/generic, lower confidence in organic, high-quality engagement; if most comments are substantive and from real profiles, the single emoji is less concerning." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation or approval (low-effort engagement). Serves as social proof but provides no substantive feedback; may be genuine follower engagement or generic/automated." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment (a heart emoji) is available, so the sample is too small for a reliable determination. A heart indicates positive sentiment but is low-information and commonly used by both real users and bots or mass-engagement services. Given that, I assign a moderate-low fakeness score (30) but with limited confidence (40) because many genuine followers also leave simple emojis. For advertising feasibility this evidence is weak: overall score 25 (low) with low confidence (30). Recommendation: obtain a larger comment sample, plus context (post likes, follower count, comment timestamps, commenter profiles and activity). Check for repeated short/generic comments across posts, account authenticity of commenters (profile pictures, posting history), engagement rate (comments+likes relative to followers), and audience demographics before deciding on ad spend." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 0, "fakeness_confidence": 0, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 0, "comment_types": [], "interpretation": "No comments were provided with the request, so I cannot analyze or classify comment types, estimate fakeness, or assess advertising feasibility. To proceed, please supply the comment text (copy/paste or exported list). Helpful details: a sample of 30–100 recent comments, usernames, timestamps, like counts on comments, and whether replies are present. Once you provide the comments I will: 1) categorize comment types (e.g., genuine praise, questions, emoji-only, promotional/spam, user-to-user tags, bot-like repetitive messages), 2) rate each category's likely fakeness (0–100) with confidence scores, 3) give an overall fakeness and suitability score for advertising, and 4) provide actionable interpretation and recommendations." }

Text: The first one though 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "reaction / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or endorsement of a specific item or moment in the post (short, emotive reaction that signals genuine interest and boosts engagement metrics)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"The first one though 😂\" is a short, context-specific reaction that reads as a genuine user response (humor/laughter about a particular image or first item in a carousel). It is not promotional, does not include generic praise or call-to-action, and lacks hallmarks of bot/spam behavior (no links, emojis used naturally, not repetitive). However, this is only one data point: you cannot reliably assess overall comment authenticity, audience quality, or ad-suitability from a single comment. For advertising decisions, request a larger sample of recent comments, commenter profile checks (account age, followers, posting history), engagement-to-follower ratios, and whether comments are from recurring genuine followers versus likely paid/bot accounts. Based on this lone comment I estimate low fakeness but have limited confidence; overall ad-feasibility is indeterminate-to-moderate (score 45) because authenticity looks fine here but there is insufficient evidence about sustained engagement quality or audience fit." }

Text: 👣😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/affection and boost visible engagement; low informational value (no substantive feedback)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only positive reaction (👣😍). Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous: they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers or low-effort bot/batch comments used to inflate engagement. As a signal for advertising feasibility this is weak — it doesn't provide evidence of audience interest, intent to purchase, meaningful conversation, or demographic fit. Confidence in this judgment is limited because only one comment was provided. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts for repetition patterns, check comment timestamps and similarity across posts (signs of automation), compare comment rate to follower count and like rate, and examine comment diversity and replies from the influencer. Without that additional context, treat this post's comment activity as low-quality evidence in favor of investment." }

Text: Quelle est la réf du jean svp ?:)

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 75, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product inquiry / question", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for the jeans reference (model/sku) — information-seeking with implied purchase interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a direct, specific product question in French (\"Quelle est la réf du jean svp ? :)\"). Its content and phrasing appear natural and user-driven (not generic praise, no repetitious bot-like patterns), so likelihood of being genuine is high. Purpose is clear: the commenter wants product details, which signals real interest and potential intent to purchase. For advertising decisions this is a positive signal because it demonstrates product-focused engagement rather than shallow or automated comments. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to judge overall engagement quality or audience authenticity for the influencer. Recommended next steps: examine volume of similar product-specific comments across posts, comment-to-follower ratio, response rate from the influencer to such questions, and look for patterns of repetitive or templated comments that could indicate inauthentic engagement." }

Text: First one kinda ate tho🔥😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive organic praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "compliment/endorsement of specific item ('first one'), expresses approval and enthusiasm (engagement, social proof)" } ], "interpretation": "The single available comment — 'First one kinda ate tho🔥😂' — is a casual, slang-driven positive reaction using emojis. It reads like an authentic audience response (short, specific, not templated or promotional). With only one comment it's impossible to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality robustly. The low fakeness score reflects that this comment lacks common bot/paid-signature signals (generic praise, repetitive phrases, links, tags, or obvious spam). However, a single informal comment provides weak evidence for ad-buy decisions: low volume and unknown commenter relevance limit confidence. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample (50–200 recent comments), engagement rate vs. follower count, commenter profiles (real accounts, follower counts, activity), and patterns of repetitive comments to make a reliable advertising-feasibility decision." }

Text: 🦶🏼👅

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Ambiguous emoji (possible sexual/fetish)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short/low-effort engagement: could be flirtatious/sexual expression, trolling, or generic bot/spam trying to leave a visible mark. Not a conversational or value-adding comment." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: '🦶🏼👅'. This is a single, context-free emoji pair that can reasonably be read as sexual/fetish or provocative. Such short emoji comments are frequently used by (a) genuine followers expressing flirtation, (b) trolls seeking attention, or (c) low-effort bot/spam accounts that post generic emojis to appear active. With one comment there is insufficient data for high confidence. I rate the comment as moderately likely to be fake (60/100) because emoji-only comments are common in inorganic engagement, but the confidence is limited (50/100) due to the tiny sample and lack of commenter metadata (account age, posting history, follower overlap, timing). For influencer ad-feasibility the overall signal is weak (overall score 40/100, confidence 45/100): a single ambiguous comment does not indicate a healthy, engaged community and may present brand-safety concerns (sexual undertones). Recommended next steps before making ad decisions: gather a larger comment sample, check commenter profiles for authenticity (followers, post frequency, profile completeness), measure comment-to-follower ratio and comment diversity, look for repeated/templated comments across posts, and review sentiment and brand-safety risk. If many similar emoji comments appear from low-quality accounts, reduce confidence in organic reach and reconsider or require audience verification." }

Text: Hahaha the first one 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "reactive / amused reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and refer to a specific element of the post (\"the first one\"); indicates a viewer engaged with content and reacted emotionally." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Hahaha the first one 😂\" appears context-specific (references \"the first one\") and uses natural language plus an emoji, which strongly suggests an organic reaction rather than a generic bot comment. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall audience authenticity or the influencer's engagement quality. If this one comment is representative of a larger set of similarly specific replies, that supports genuine engagement. If instead the comment stream is dominated by short, interchangeable remarks or emoji-only messages, that could indicate low-effort engagement or coordinated activity.\n\nRecommendations: verify the commenter(s) (account age, follower count, posting history), check overall comment volume and diversity, review time distribution of comments and repetition patterns, and compare comments to likes/views to calculate engagement quality. For ad-buy decisions: while this particular comment seems authentic (low fakeness), the very low comment count limits confidence in the audience quality — proceed cautiously and request more comprehensive engagement metrics before purchase." }

Text: I watched this so many times

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/expressive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Conveys enjoyment and repeated viewing (engagement/entertainment signal rather than product interest or specific feedback)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'I watched this so many times' reads as a low-effort but genuine expression of enjoyment or repeated attention. It signals that the content is engaging/entertaining and promotes retention, which is valuable for awareness campaigns. However, the comment contains no product-specific feedback, purchase intent, or influencer advocacy, so its utility for predicting conversion or ad ROI is limited. The low fakeness score reflects that this phrasing is common for real viewers; it could be copied or generic but there are no clear bot markers (e.g., templated emojis, off-topic links, or obvious spam patterns). Given only one comment, confidence is moderate rather than high. Recommendation: treat this as a small positive signal for content appeal, but before deciding on ad spend evaluate a larger sample of comments, like-to-follower ratio, audience demographics, and engagement consistency to assess follower authenticity and campaign suitability." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive reaction; low-effort engagement likely intended to signal approval or to increase visible engagement. Could be either a genuine quick reaction or a bot/batch comment." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists solely of repeated laughing emojis (\"😂😂😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are low-information signals: they do indicate some engagement but provide no qualitative feedback, intent, or conversational value. Such comments are common from genuine followers reacting quickly, but they are also frequently produced by bot accounts or low-effort engagement farms. Given the single data point, I cannot confidently determine authenticity — hence a moderate fakeness rating with modest confidence. For advertising decisions this comment by itself is a weak positive signal: it shows some visible engagement but not audience interest or intent to convert. I recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments and other metrics before purchase — check comment diversity, recurrence of the same commenters, comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios, follower quality, and conversion-related actions (swipe-ups/UTM clicks) to form a reliable assessment." }

Text: @estel_lau jamais nous car on préfère rester avec nos koala 🐨 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "conversational reply / personal humor", "count": 1, "purpose": "Social engagement with another user (@estel_lau); humorous/personal remark to show affiliation and rapport (uses emoji and informal language)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a tagged reply in French: \"@estel_lau jamais nous car on préfère rester avec nos koala 🐨 😂\" (\"never us because we prefer to stay with our koalas\"). It appears organic — a personal, joking response directed at another user, not promotional or generic praise. There are no signs of spam, link promotion, repetitive phrasing, or bot-like behavior. Given the very small sample (one comment), conclusions are limited: this comment supports a pattern of real audience interaction but is insufficient alone to prove broad authentic engagement. For advertising feasibility, this is a small positive signal (real followers engaging conversationally), but you should evaluate a larger set of comments, comment timing, follower profiles, and overall engagement rates before making a buy decision." }

Text: @ma_rouxxxx

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging another user (bring the post to a friend's attention, invite them to view/comment, or attempt to increase engagement/visibility). Could be genuine friend-tag or low-effort engagement/spam." } ], "interpretation": "Only one visible comment is a single user handle mention (@ma_rouxxxx). This is low-information, low-effort engagement: it does not express sentiment about the content, no discussion, and no clear endorsement. Such tags are commonly genuine (users pointing posts to friends) but are also frequently used as engagement-bait or by automated/spam accounts. Given the single comment, sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience quality. For ad-buy decisions, this comment profile suggests weak commenter authenticity signals and limited organic conversation — a risk for influencer effectiveness. Recommend broader checks before purchase: likes-to-followers ratio, comment diversity across several recent posts, whether the tagged account appears repeatedly (sign of inorganic networks), and account age/activity of commenters." }

Text: Le pire c’est de dire (merci de garder les enfants) alors que c’est juste normal 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Sarcastic/critical reaction with humor", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express opinion/critique of behavior in the post, engage with humor (uses emoji to signal tone)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a natural, sarcastic reaction in French: it criticizes someone saying 'thank you for watching the kids' as if it were noteworthy, adding a laughing emoji. Linguistic cues (colloquial phrasing, context-specific critique, emoji) point to a genuine human commenter rather than a generic bot or paid/promo comment. With only one comment provided, conclusions are limited — the sample suggests authentic engagement but is too small to generalize about the influencer's entire audience. For advertising decisions, this isolated comment is a positive sign (audience reacts and voices opinions), but you should analyze a larger sample of comments, like/dislike ratios, follower quality, and comment timestamps to better assess authenticity and suitability for campaigns." }

Text: La vrai vie 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and signal that the post feels authentic/relatable to the commenter (short positive reaction with emoji)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment — \"La vrai vie 😍\" — is a short, positive French-language reaction meaning roughly \"the real life\" with a heart-eyes emoji. It reads as a genuine, on-topic compliment indicating the viewer found the content relatable or attractive. There are no obvious bot markers (no spammy links, repeated generic phrases, or unnatural punctuation), but the comment is low-effort and could also appear in engagement pods or be left by minimally engaged real users. Because this analysis is based on one comment only, confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility: this single positive comment is encouraging but insufficient as evidence of a high-quality engaged audience. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments for diversity and originality, check commenter profiles for real follower counts and posting history, measure like-to-follower ratio and comment-to-follower ratio over multiple posts, and look at comment timestamps to detect suspicious clustering. Based on the single comment, I give low estimated fakeness (20) but only moderate confidence (60) and a cautiously positive overall suitability for advertising (70) with moderate-low confidence (50) until more data are reviewed." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/positive engagement; low-information quick reaction that signals attention but provides no substantive feedback. Could be genuine casual engagement or low-effort botged interaction." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a string of laughing emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). This is a low-information, high-frequency comment type that commonly appears on Instagram. It indicates that the viewer found the content amusing or wanted to register a quick positive reaction, but it does not demonstrate meaningful engagement (no question, endorsement, or specific feedback). Such short emoji-only comments are easy to generate at scale and therefore carry an elevated risk of being produced by automated accounts or engagement pods, but a single instance is insufficient evidence to conclude fakery. For influencer-advertising decisions this comment by itself is weak evidence of an engaged, persuasive audience. I recommend evaluating additional signals before purchasing advertising: number of total comments, comment diversity and length, commenter account quality (profile completeness, follower counts, posting history), timing/distribution of comments, like-to-comment ratio, and presence of conversation threads. Based on the lone emoji comment, the comments' authenticity appears more likely genuine than obviously fake but remains uncertain; overall suitability for advertising is low-to-moderate and requires more data to make a reliable decision." }

Text: @clem_mamancomblee ptdr trop nous ça !! 😆🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Addressing/including another user (@clem_mamancomblee) to share the post — increases interpersonal reach and signals the commenter's personal connection or desire to show the post to that person." }, { "type": "emotive reaction (laughter/emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressing amusement and relatability (ptdr, laughing emojis) — positive sentiment and authentic-feeling engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is brief, informal and reads like an authentic reaction from a follower tagging someone to share the humor/relatability of the post. It contains a direct mention and multiple laughter emojis, indicating positive sentiment and personal connection rather than generic promotional language. Given only one comment, there is very limited evidence to evaluate overall community quality or coordinated/fake activity; the low fakeness score reflects that the comment's tone and structure look genuine, but confidence is moderate because one data point is insufficient. For advertising decisions this single comment is slightly positive (shows real audience engagement and share intent) but far from enough to judge consistent engagement, audience quality, or influencer effectiveness — recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments, likes, follower profiles and engagement rates before purchase." }

Text: @teiiha t’es dispo quand ? 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "tag/mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Calls another user into the conversation / draws attention (engagement by tagging a friend)" }, { "type": "conversational question", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks about availability — personal/real-life coordination or playful planning" }, { "type": "casual/emotional reaction (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Adds humor/light tone and friendliness to the interaction (signals familiarity)" } ], "interpretation": "This single comment (@teiiha t’es dispo quand ? 😂) reads as a casual, conversational, and likely genuine interaction between people who know each other or follow the influencer. It tags another user, asks a real-world question (when are you available), and uses a laughing emoji — patterns typical of organic follower/friend engagement rather than manufactured promotional comments. Given only one comment to analyze, the sample is very small; while this specific comment appears authentic (fakeness low), it is insufficient to draw conclusions about the overall comment quality or audience authenticity across the account. For advertising feasibility, more data is needed: volume and diversity of comments, like-to-comment ratio, timestamps (to detect engagement pods or sudden bursts), recurring commenters, follower quality, and whether comments are relevant to posts/topics. Based on this single comment, the post shows a touch of real engagement but provides limited evidence to support a strong advertising purchase decision." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/affection; low-effort engagement that signals positive sentiment but provides no substantive feedback or intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: a single heart emoji (❤️). This is a low-information, positive reaction: it indicates a favorable audience feeling but cannot be used on its own to assess authenticity or conversion potential. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also easy to generate by bots or engagement farms, so the risk of inauthenticity is non-negligible. Given the single short comment, there is insufficient evidence to conclude strong audience interest or reliable organic engagement for advertising decisions. To improve assessment, examine: (1) full comment set and comment diversity, (2) commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), (3) timing patterns (many comments in short bursts), (4) like-to-comment ratios and story/DM interactions, and (5) repeated identical comments across posts. Based on the available data, I rate fakeness as relatively low-to-moderate (25/100) but with limited confidence (40/100), and overall suitability for advertising as modest (45/100) with low confidence (35/100)." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction / low-effort praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show quick approval or encouragement; increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback or insight about audience intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two clapping-hand emojis. This is a low-effort engagement signal that could be genuine (a follower expressing applause) or artificial (bot or paid engagement leaving generic emoji comments). Because it conveys no contextual information, it is weak evidence of a real, engaged audience. Fakeness is moderately likely due to the generic nature of emoji comments but confidence is limited because a single comment is insufficient to detect patterns. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single data point should not be relied on: request a larger sample of recent comments, commenter profile checks (age, activity, follower counts), comment-to-like ratio, and temporal patterns to judge authenticity and audience quality before purchasing advertising or collaborations." }

Text: Non ça va je suis raisonnables sauf une fois et c'était la faute d'un avion😉🙂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal conversational comment (humorous)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Genuine engagement — responding to the post/thread with a personal remark and emoji; builds rapport and shows follower familiarity. Not promotional, no link/tag, not generic praise." } ], "interpretation": "Comment text (French): \"Non ça va je suis raisonnables sauf une fois et c'était la faute d'un avion😉🙂\" — translation: \"No it's fine I'm reasonable except once and it was the plane's fault😉🙂\". Tone is casual and humorous; grammar is informal, emoji used to convey lightheartedness. There are no indicators of spam, self-promotion, or copy-paste templated comments; content references a specific personal anecdote which supports authenticity. Given only a single comment, this is a very small sample and cannot reliably represent the whole comment set or audience quality. For advertising decisions this one comment is a modest positive signal (real follower engagement, conversational tone), but insufficient alone to conclude overall audience authenticity or suitability. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments for repetition, similarity, or generic praise; check commenter profiles (age, follower/following ratio, posting history) for bot/ghost signs; compute overall engagement rate and comment diversity; look for clusters of identical comments, sudden comment spikes, or many emoji-only replies. Based on this single comment: low likelihood of being fake, but do further checks before purchasing advertising." }

Text: @cha_chrlne 🤌🏼🤌🏼🤌🏼🤌🏼 no compassion pour Patrick et Woogun

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Directly addresses or notifies another user (@cha_chrlne) to draw attention or continue a conversation." }, { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressive emphasis (multiple pinched-finger emojis) to strengthen tone or convey approval/attitude." }, { "type": "opinion/negative sentiment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short textual statement ('no compassion pour Patrick et Woogun') expressing a stance or judgment about named individuals." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears organic and context-specific rather than generic promotional spam. The user tags another account, uses emphatic emojis, and states a negative opinion about two named people, suggesting familiarity with the conversation or community. Fakeness likelihood is low (around 10) but confidence is moderate because one isolated comment is a thin sample. For advertising feasibility: the comment shows engaged, opinionated followers which can indicate an active audience, but the negativity and small sample size mean you should not rely on this alone. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for volume, sentiment distribution, recurring phrases (bot signals), timing patterns, and commenter account authenticity before deciding on an ad buy." }

Text: Bonjour quel est ma référence de la robe de Caroline 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product inquiry / genuine follower", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask for product reference/sku of the dress (informational; indicates purchase interest or intent)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided ('Bonjour quel est ma référence de la robe de Caroline 😍') reads as a genuine product-related question from a follower: polite greeting, clear request for a dress reference, and an emoji that signals positive engagement. There are no obvious bot patterns (repetitive text, links, hashtags, generic praise). Fakeness is therefore low, but this assessment is limited by sample size: one comment is insufficient to judge overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment is a positive signal (shows product interest), but you should review total comment volume, diversity of commenters (profiles), timing, like-to-follower ratio, and look for repeated/generic comments across posts before relying on this account for ad spend." }

Text: Ah ouai !!!! 🤣 @maariondrs

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Casual reaction with user tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and draw a specific user's attention to the post (social tagging). Not promotional or informative about product/brand intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ah ouai !!!! 🤣 @maariondrs') reads as a genuine, informal reaction and a tag to invite a friend to view the post. It shows social engagement but carries no purchase intent, product feedback, or influencer endorsement signal. Fakeness likelihood is low given the natural phrasing and use of a personal tag, but this assessment is limited by sample size (one comment). For advertising-feasibility decisions, comments like this provide little evidence of a commercially receptive audience; you should analyze a larger sample of comments, comment origin accounts, overall engagement rate, and follower quality before committing to purchase." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (low-effort engagement)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter; quick lightweight engagement that boosts visible engagement metrics but provides no substantive feedback or endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is present: three laughing emojis (😂😂😂). This is a low-effort, positive reaction that could legitimately come from a follower or be posted by an account used to inflate engagement. With a single non-substantive comment there is very limited signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or authenticity. I assess a moderate probability the comment could be inorganic (fakeness_score 40) but confidence is low because the sample size is one. For advertising feasibility this type of comment provides little persuasive social proof — it neither demonstrates product interest nor an engaged, trustworthy community. Recommended next steps before any ad spend or partnership decision: analyze a larger comment sample across multiple posts, check the commenter(s) profiles for authenticity (age, follower/following ratios, post history), look for repeated identical comments, review like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns (surges), and presence of substantive feedback/questions from followers. These checks will materially increase confidence in whether the influencer’s engagement is genuine." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses positive reaction/affection or approval (low-effort engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"😍😍\". Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine (fans expressing affection) but are also frequently produced by low-effort bot accounts or by casual viewers who do not provide substantive engagement. With one short emoji there is very little signal: you cannot assess diversity of commenters, repetition patterns across posts, account quality, or whether comments are organic. Given that, I estimate a moderate probability the comment(s) are low-effort/possibly inauthentic (fakeness_score 45) but with low confidence (30) because the data is insufficient. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single comment provides weak evidence; the overall assessment is cautious (overall_score 40) with low confidence (25). Recommended next checks before any ad purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts for repetition/generic phrasing, check commenter account age/follower counts and activity, measure like-to-comment ratios, look for clusters of identical short comments, and use automated bot-detection or third-party authenticity reports. If most comments are similar emoji-only or one-word replies, treat influencer engagement as low-quality and request audience verification or run a small test campaign first." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 20, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "выражение поддержки/симпатии; поверхностное позитивное взаимодействие без информационной ценности" } ], "interpretation": "Имеется только один комментарий — эмодзи «❤️». Это низкосигнальный показатель: такой комментарий может быть как от реального подписчика (быстрая положительная реакция), так и от бота/масс-лайкера. Никаких признаков содержательного взаимодействия (вопросы, отзывы, упоминания личного опыта) нет, поэтому на основе этого комментария нельзя надёжно судить о качестве аудитории или ценности для рекламы. Рекомендации: посмотреть больше комментариев под другими постами, проанализировать разнообразие и длительность взаимодействий, проверить профили комментирующих (реальные аккаунты vs. пустые/спам), соотношение вовлечённости к количеству подписчиков и временную динамику активности." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval/celebration/encouragement; increases visible engagement but carries little substantive information about audience intent or purchase interest." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided and it consists entirely of clapping and fire emojis. Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine quick reactions from real followers, but they are also characteristic of low-effort or automated engagement. Given the limited sample size, this comment offers very low signal about audience quality or purchase intent. For an advertising decision you should not rely on this alone. Recommended further checks: examine a larger set of comments for repetition or identical emoji patterns, review commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), measure comment-to-like ratio and overall engagement rate, check timing patterns (many comments in a short window), and look for substantive, specific comments indicating real interest. Based on the single emoji comment, I rate the comments as moderately likely to be low-information or inorganic (hence a cautious overall suitability score)." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (hearts)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses simple positive reaction/affection; serves as lightweight engagement to boost visible activity but provides no substantive feedback or audience intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of two heart emojis. Emoji-only comments are common from both genuine followers and automated/bot accounts; they are low-effort and give almost no signal about real interest, purchase intent, or audience quality. Given the minimal sample size and lack of commenter metadata (username, account age, follower count, comment timing), authenticity is uncertain — moderately suspicious but not provable. For advertising decisions this comment is weak evidence: it increases visible engagement count but does not indicate an engaged, relevant audience. Recommendation: request the full comment set, commenter profiles, engagement rate over time, and follower quality metrics before buying ad/partnerships. If only many similar emoji comments are present across posts, treat as a red flag and investigate possible purchased/automated engagement." }

Text: 🔥👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/enthusiasm; lightweight engagement to signal approval and boost visible engagement metrics" } ], "interpretation": "This single comment (🔥👏) is a generic positive emoji response. Such comments typically serve to signal praise or excitement and to increase visible engagement, but they carry very little substantive information about the commenter’s relationship to the influencer or true interest in promoted products. Emoji-only comments can be genuine (a casual follower) or automated (bots or engagement pods); with only one comment there is insufficient signal to strongly conclude authenticity. Recommendation: evaluate a larger sample of comments for diversity (text length, specificity, user profiles), timing patterns (many similar comments posted quickly), repetition across posts, follower accounts (real-looking vs. newly created), and like-to-comment ratios before making an advertising purchase decision. Based on this single data point, authenticity risk is low-to-moderate (fakeness_score 25) but confidence is limited (45). Overall suitability for advertising from the comment evidence alone is moderate (55) with limited confidence (40) — you need broader comment and follower analysis to reach a reliable conclusion." }

Text: C’est si beau 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and provide lightweight engagement (social proof). Short, non-specific praise with emojis to signal approval." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: \"C’est si beau 😍😍\". This is a brief, positive and generic compliment that increases visible engagement but provides no topical or substantive information. Such comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently used by bots or engagement farms because they are safe, low-effort, and reusable across many posts. Given the limited sample size, I assign a moderate fakeness risk (40/100) but with low confidence (35/100) because one remark is insufficient to judge authenticity. For advertising feasibility: a single generic positive comment is weak evidence of a healthy, engaged audience. The overall suitability score is low (30/100) with low confidence (35/100). To make a reliable decision, request additional data: distribution of comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, activity), comment timing patterns, like-to-comment ratio, repetition of identical comments across posts, and audience demographics. If multiple comments are similarly generic and come from low-quality accounts, fakeness risk and unsuitability for paid partnerships would increase. If comments are diverse, specific, and from real-looking accounts, the influencer’s ad potential would be higher." }

Text: Bravoo👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short praise / generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "positive reinforcement / social proof (expresses admiration or approval, increases visible engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Bravoo👏\" is a brief, positive reaction that provides limited information. Its form (short praise + emoji) is common among genuine followers but also among low-effort bot or purchased-comment patterns. On its own it is neither a strong indicator of authentic, meaningful engagement nor of organized inauthentic activity. Confidence in this judgment is moderate because there is only one comment to analyze. For advertising feasibility you should not rely on this signal alone — request more comments across multiple recent posts, check commenter account quality (age, follower counts, activity), look for repeated identical comments, timing patterns, and overall comment-to-follower ratio before making a buy decision." }

Text: Trop bien bravo ! Ton camelback a l’air top aussi. D’où vient il ?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 82, "overall_score": 78, "overall_confidence": 72, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise and positive reaction to the content (build rapport, social approval)." }, { "type": "Product / item inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about the origin of an item shown (information-seeking, potential purchase intent)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears genuine: it contains natural phrasing, specific reference to a 'camelback' (not a generic compliment), punctuation and a direct question about product origin. That combination (praise + specific product question) typically indicates a real follower with interest in the item, which is useful for advertisers because it shows product curiosity and engagement. Fakeness is low given the specificity and conversational tone, but this assessment is based on one comment only — limited sample size reduces confidence for account-level conclusions. For advertising feasibility, this comment is a positive signal (engaged audience, product interest), but you should evaluate volume of similar comments, likes per post, follower authenticity, and comment diversity before a purchase decision." }

Text: T’es tellement motivante !! Il faut que je testes cette marque 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/fan comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Compliment to the influencer (social affirmation) and expression of intent to try the brand (potential conversion signal)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment—\"T’es tellement motivante !! Il faut que je testes cette marque 😍\"—reads as a genuine, engaged follower: it contains a personalized compliment, a stated intention to try the brand, and an emoji, all of which are typical of organic positive engagement. Fakeness is assessed as low (20/100) but with moderate confidence because one comment is a very small sample and such short enthusiastic messages can also be manufactured (engagement pods or purchased comments). For advertising decisions this comment is a small positive signal (social proof and potential interest), but it is insufficient on its own to conclude that the influencer’s audience is broadly authentic or that conversions will be strong. I recommend further checks before purchasing ad space: review the commenter account(s) for authenticity and activity, analyze a larger sample of recent comments for diversity and repetition, check like-to-comment ratios, look for repetitive phrasing across posts, and examine follower quality (active accounts, geographic match to your target, and prior engagement with brand-type content)." }

Text: 👏 ça y est moi aussi je me suis inscrite à mon premier trail solo 13 kms 530 d+ pour commencer hâte de vivre cette expérience 🔥 et merci pour ton inspiration ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 82, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal action / testimonial", "count": 1, "purpose": "Follower reports having signed up for a real-world activity (13 km trail, 530 m elevation), indicating the influencer inspired concrete action — strong social proof and conversion signal." }, { "type": "Praise / positive sentiment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expression of gratitude and enthusiasm (emojis and thank you) to reinforce approval and emotional connection with the influencer." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as genuine: specific detail (distance and elevation), first-person commitment, emotional language and thank-you make it unlikely to be a generic bot or paid comment. It functions as social proof — the influencer motivated a follower to take an action (signing up for a trail), which is a positive signal for advertising in this niche (running, outdoor gear, events). However, this is only one comment; while qualitatively strong, the sample size is too small to generalize about the comment pool or audience quality. Recommended next steps before buying advertising: analyze a larger sample of comments (variety, timestamps, commenter profiles), check commenter follower counts and past activity, measure engagement-to-follower ratio, and look for repeated/phrasal patterns indicative of inauthentic activity." }

Text: Pour le problème de poche d’eau qui fait du bruit dans le sac d’hydratation : retourner la poche de bas en haut et aspirer l’air c’est tip top comme technique 🤗

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product troubleshooting / user tip", "count": 1, "purpose": "Give a practical solution to a product issue (how to stop a hydration bladder from making noise); indicates genuine user knowledge and helpful engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided is a product-specific troubleshooting tip written in natural language and includes an emoji — characteristics consistent with an authentic, organically generated user reply rather than a promotional or bot-like comment. This type of comment is valuable for influencer advertising because it shows that the audience engages with product details and shares practical advice. However, this is only one comment: the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: analyze a larger set of recent comments for similar organic content, check reply threads (are there follow-ups?), measure engagement rate relative to follower count, and screen for patterns of repetitive wording or generic praise that could indicate bot or paid-comment behavior." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji/short positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort appreciation/affection (show support or increase visible engagement); common from both genuine followers and bots/engagement farms." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment: a heart emoji. This provides very little signal about audience quality or authenticity. Short emoji-only comments are high-frequency, low-information interactions that can be genuine (a real follower expressing appreciation) or automated/low-effort (bot or engagement-for-hire). Given the minimal data, I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood but with low confidence. For advertising purchase decisions, this single comment is insufficient: I recommend collecting more comments and account-level data (commenter profiles, timing and repetition of similar comments, diversity and length of comments, ratio of likes-to-comments, reply rate, follower growth patterns) and running basic authenticity checks before proceeding." }

Text: J’adore cette marque et trop contente de la trouver a Sephora mtnt 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive endorsement / brand praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm for the brand, provide social proof and signal purchase or availability (mentions finding the brand at Sephora)." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment is a straightforward positive endorsement in French: \"J’adore cette marque et trop contente de la trouver a Sephora mtnt 😍\". Signals: natural phrasing, specific retailer mention (Sephora) and an emoji — these features lean toward a genuine satisfied consumer reaction rather than a templated spam comment. However, with only one comment available the sample is too small to be confident. Risks of inauthenticity include the possibility of a planted promotional comment (brand/agency/influencer's team) or a friendly follower. Given the limited data, I assess moderate-low likelihood of fakery (score 30, confidence 60). For advertising feasibility this single positive comment is supportive but insufficient alone — overall suitability score 70 with moderate confidence (55). Recommended next checks before purchase decision: analyze a larger set of recent comments for repetition or patterns, inspect commenter profile(s) for authenticity (follower count, post history, engagement), check timing of comments (many posted within short window), look for replies/likes on comments, and compare comment sentiment distribution to follower size and post impressions." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/approval with minimal effort; functions as a like or quick endorsement. Low informational value for audience targeting or genuine engagement assessment." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of two heart-eyes emojis was provided. Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine quick reactions from followers, but they are also frequently used by bots or low-effort engagement accounts. With no additional comments, no commenter metadata, no timestamps, and no diversity of responses, the available evidence is insufficient to confidently assert authenticity or strong audience interest. For advertising feasibility this comment indicates a positive but very low-quality signal — it shows some favorable sentiment but provides no insight into audience relevance, intent to buy, or meaningful interaction. Recommendation: gather more comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, bios, comment history), overall engagement metrics (likes, shares, saves, engagement rate), and temporal patterns before making a purchase decision." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation/affection; low informational value and low signal for audience interest" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: a heart emoji (\"❤️\"). Emoji-only comments are common and can come from genuine followers wanting to show support, but they are also easy for bots or engagement farms to produce, so authenticity is ambiguous. This comment type gives almost no insight into audience relevance for advertising (no product mention, no questions, no tagging of friends, no purchase intent). With one low-effort comment the signal is weak — not sufficient to assess community quality or ad receptiveness. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments and examine diversity (long-form comments, questions, product mentions, tagged users), commenter account quality (real profiles vs. newly created/anonymous/botlike accounts), timing patterns, and engagement ratios (likes/comments relative to follower count) before making an advertising decision." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/approval and to increase visible engagement; low informational value and can be low-effort or automated" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: two heart-eyes emojis (\"😍😍\"). Emoji-only comments are common and can come from genuine followers, casual viewers, or automated/engagement-farming accounts. By themselves they offer very little signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or purchase intent. Given the limited sample, I assign moderate suspicion of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 50) but with low confidence because emoji-only comments are ambiguous. For advertising feasibility the available evidence is weak (overall_score 35): the engagement visible here is positive but shallow and not diagnostic of a real, high-value audience. Recommended next steps before an ad buy: obtain a larger comment sample, analyze commenter profiles (follower counts, activity, profile completeness), comment timing patterns, ratio of comments-to-followers and likes-to-followers, presence of repeated/generic comments, and comment diversity (text, questions, specific product references)." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (hearts)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive/affectionate reaction; low-effort engagement — can be genuine fandom or generic/bot engagement used to inflate apparent engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided is three heart emojis (❤️❤️❤️). Short emoji-only comments are common both for genuine quick positive reactions and for low-effort or automated engagement (bots, engagement pods, or purchased comments). With only one comment and no context (no commenter profile data, no timing, no pattern across multiple comments or posts), it is difficult to be confident about authenticity. I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood because emoji-only comments are a frequent signal of low-information engagement, but confidence is low due to lack of supporting data. For advertising purchase decisions this single comment is insufficient evidence of a healthy, authentic, engaged audience. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments across several posts, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), check comment timing patterns, compare like-to-comment ratios, and look for repeated identical comments or many short/generic replies. If multiple comments are similarly short/generic or come from suspicious accounts, the risk of fake engagement rises and the influencer should be treated cautiously for ad spend." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/admiration and adds low-effort engagement/social proof; minimal informational value and ambiguous authenticity (could be a genuine fan or low-effort/bot interaction)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (four heart‑eyes emojis) signals positive sentiment but provides very limited signal about audience quality or authenticity. Emoji-only comments are common and can come from genuine followers or from automated/low-effort accounts; with only one sample it's not possible to reliably distinguish. Fakeness risk is moderate given the low-verbal content, but confidence in that judgment is low. For advertising purchase decisions, this single comment is weak evidence—you should analyze a larger, time‑ordered sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts), engagement rates relative to follower count, comment diversity, and like/reply patterns before deciding." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses simple support/affection and increases visible engagement with minimal effort; can come from genuine fans, casual followers, engagement pods or bots." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists solely of repeated heart emojis. Emoji-only comments are low-signal: they indicate positive reaction but provide no topical relevance, purchase intent, or audience insight. Such comments are common from genuine casual followers but are also commonly produced by bots or engagement pods because they are quick and low-effort. Given the single data point, I assign a moderate fakeness probability (around 60) but with low confidence (40) because the comment could easily be genuine. For advertising-feasibility, this sample is insufficient and leans toward caution (overall score 30, confidence 35). Recommended next steps before buying ad space: collect a larger sample of comments across recent posts, examine comment diversity and timing, inspect commenter accounts for authenticity (profile pictures, posting history, follower/following ratios), compare like-to-comment ratios, and look for repeated identical comments from many accounts. With more data I can give a higher-confidence judgment." }

Text: 🔥🙌🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval and boost visible engagement; low-effort reaction that can be genuine or used by automated/farmed engagement services." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (\"🔥🙌🔥\") is a generic, emoji-only expression of enthusiasm. Emoji-only comments are a weak signal: they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers but are also commonly produced by bots or low-effort paid engagement. With only one comment provided, confidence in any judgment is limited. Likely interpretation: small, low-information engagement that provides minimal insight into audience quality or intent to purchase. For an advertising decision, this single emoji comment should be treated cautiously — it does not indicate meaningful conversation, purchase intent, or a high-quality engaged audience. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across recent posts, check commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), look for repetitiveness or identical emojis across many commenters, measure overall engagement rate relative to follower count, and assess comment diversity and sentiment before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: La qualité est superbe !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic compliment / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive endorsement / social proof — short, non-specific praise likely intended to show approval and boost engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"La qualité est superbe !\" is a brief, positive endorsement. Its lack of detail (no specifics about product features, purchase context, or personal experience) makes it ambiguous: it could be a genuine satisfied follower or a low-effort comment from a bot/comment farm or engagement pod. With only one comment available, sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions. Recommended next steps before buying advertising: analyze more comments for diversity and specificity, check commenter profiles (age, post history, follower ratios), compare comment-to-like ratio on the post, and review overall follower authenticity. Given current evidence, treat engagement as moderately reliable but verify further." }

Text: Wowwww 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive / emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration or positive sentiment; increase visible engagement. Such short, repetitive-emoji comments can come from genuine fans, low-effort followers, engagement pods, or automated/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: \"Wowwww 😍😍😍😍\". This is a generic, high-positivity, low-information reaction. These comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots or by members of engagement pods because they require minimal effort and uniformly boost visible engagement. Given only one data point, the fakeness likelihood is moderate (60/100) but confidence is limited (40/100) because we lack contextual signals (commenter account age and activity, timing relative to post, distribution of similar comments across posts, follower-to-commenter overlap, language patterns, or overall comment diversity).\n\nFor advertising decision-making this single comment provides almost no reliable signal of audience quality. The overall suitability score is therefore below neutral (45/100) with low confidence (35/100). To improve assessment, request or analyze: a larger sample of recent comments across multiple posts, commenter usernames (to check for suspicious account patterns), engagement rate (likes, saves, shares vs followers), comment uniqueness and depth, timing/clustering of comments, and follower authenticity checks. If many comments are of the same generic form and come from new or empty-profile accounts, treat engagement as likely inauthentic and deprioritize purchase. If comments are varied, specific, and from established accounts, confidence in genuine engagement rises and ad investment becomes more feasible." }

Text: La qualité à l’air génial ! Toi qui en cherché un regardes @r.e.n.o.r.g 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "compliment/praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive feedback about the product/post to signal approval and encourage engagement." }, { "type": "referral/self-promotion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Redirects readers to another account (@r.e.n.o.r.g); likely intended to promote or recommend that account/product (could be genuine recommendation or a self-promotional/spam tag)." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment reads in French as a positive compliment plus a tagged account recommendation. This is a lightweight positive engagement signal but carries a promotional tag which raises the possibility it is either a genuine recommendation or a self-promotional/spam comment. With only one comment sample it's not possible to reliably determine authenticity; the language and emoji are plausible for a real user, but the unsolicited tag lowers trustworthiness. For advertising decisions: current comment-level evidence is weak and somewhat inconclusive — I recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, the commenter profiles (including @r.e.n.o.r.g and the commenter), comment timing and repetition patterns before concluding the influencer's engagement is authentic enough for paid promotion." }

Text: Jen veu un 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive interest (text + emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Выражение желания/признательности — пользователь сообщает, что хочет предмет или одобряет пост (эмодзи сердечки- глаза)." } ], "interpretation": "Комментарий «Jen veu un 😍😍» выглядит как короткое, положительное, спонтанное высказывание пользователя («хочу один» — вероятно опечатка/смесь языков от «J'en veux un»/«En vull un»). Отсутствуют признаки типичного бота/спама: нет ссылок, повторяющихся наборов символов, универсальных фраз рекламного характера. Поэтому уровень поддельности оцениваю как низкий, но с умеренной неопределённостью — одного комментария мало для уверенного суждения. С точки зрения покупки рекламы: качество сигналов низкое — один короткий положительный комментарий свидетельствует о некотором интересе, но не показывает глубину вовлечённости или релевантную аудиторию. Рекомендации: проверить профиль комментатора (реальный пользователь или аккаунт-бот), частоту похожих комментариев на других постах, общую активность поста (лайки, просмотры, ответы), а также распределение комментариев по разным пользователям. На основании только этого комментария принимать решение о покупке рекламы не рекомендуется." }

Text: Et la qualité 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive praise / emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for product/post quality and provide social proof (encourage creator; signal approval to others)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"Et la qualité 😍\" — a short, positive French remark praising quality with an emoji. This is typical of genuine follower praise or casual engagement; it is short and not overly generic or promotional, which slightly reduces the probability of being fake. However, with one data point there is extremely limited ability to judge authenticity or overall audience engagement. For advertising feasibility this comment is mildly positive but insufficient: you need volume, recurring interaction patterns, commenter account checks (activity, follower counts), and overall engagement rate vs. follower count. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, likes and commenter profiles, look for repeated generic phrases, timing patterns, and follower-to-engagement ratios before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Canon 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "brand mention / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses brand preference/praise and provides lightweight social proof; increases visible engagement (likes/comments) but contains no substantive user opinion or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment («Canon 😍») is available. This type of comment is ambiguous: it can be genuine fan praise or a generic, low-effort comment often produced by bots or engagement farms. The brief, non-personal nature (single brand name + emoji) reduces its evidentiary weight as authentic endorsement. Given the lack of context (commenter profile, posting time, other comments, like-to-comment ratio, repetition patterns across posts), the fakeness assessment is tentative. For advertising-buy decisions this single comment provides weak positive signal (brand affinity) but insufficient proof of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommended next steps before purchase: inspect commenter accounts for real profiles and follower counts, analyze a larger sample of recent comments for diversity and specificity, check engagement rate (likes vs. followers), and look for repeated templated comments across multiple posts. If many comments resemble this one, downgrade authenticity and ad-feasibility; if most comments are personalized and specific, raise the overall score." }

Text: Bonsoir bonne année 2026 à toi 🎉🍾🥂🧸🎊

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Greeting / Well-wishing", "count": 1, "purpose": "Social engagement: expresses goodwill (Happy New Year) and increases visible engagement/interaction; low informational or commercial value." } ], "interpretation": "The sole comment is a French-language New Year greeting with celebratory emojis (\"Bonsoir bonne année 2026 à toi 🎉🍾🥂🧸🎊\"). This is a generic, positive interpersonal engagement likely posted by a follower or casual viewer. Fakeness risk is low — the message is natural and context-appropriate — but with only one short comment there is limited signal about audience quality or conversion potential. For advertising decisions, this type of comment increases raw engagement counts but provides no evidence of purchase intent, brand affinity, or meaningful conversation. Recommendation: do a broader audit (more comments, comment diversity, question/brand-mentions, follower authenticity, engagement rate vs. follower count) before deciding on ad spend. Confidence in the fakeness rating is moderate-high because the content is straightforward; overall assessment confidence is moderate due to extremely limited sample size." }

Text: Et au resto 🤭😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "conversational / genuine follower", "count": 1, "purpose": "short, informal reaction or banter (references dining: 'Et au resto' + playful emojis). Likely social engagement rather than promotional or spam." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short, informal comment is provided: 'Et au resto 🤭😂'. It is in French, uses emojis, and reads like a casual, human reply (banter or a light joke about being at a restaurant). There are no signs of spam, promotional language, generic compliments, or bot-like repetition in this sample. Given the extremely small sample size (one comment), confidence about the overall comment authenticity is moderate but limited — the lone comment appears genuine (low fakeness), however this does not provide evidence of broad, engaged, or targeted audience interaction. For advertising feasibility this sample is inconclusive: the comment is positive/engaging in tone, but quantity and diversity of comments, like counts, follower metrics, and patterns across multiple posts are required to judge reach, engagement quality, and fraud risk. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, engagement rates, follower authenticity checks, and comment timestamps before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: La stratégie de DJI est en réalité judicieuse : l'évitement d'obstacles est leur domaine de prédilection.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/knowledgeable endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise the brand's technical strategy (obstacle avoidance), signal informed approval and social proof" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a specific, positive endorsement of DJI's strategy, mentioning 'obstacle avoidance' which indicates product knowledge rather than a generic compliment. This specificity lowers the likelihood it is a generic bot or spam, so fakeness is assessed low (15). However, the sample size is extremely small (one comment) so confidence cannot be high. For influencer-advertising feasibility: the presence of informed, positive comments is a good signal, but one comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or engagement authenticity. Recommend a broader audit (more comments, timing/language patterns, like-to-comment ratios, follower authenticity) and a small test campaign before major ad spend. Overall suitability is moderate (60) with only medium confidence due to limited data." }

Text: 😍😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive emotion / low-effort engagement to signal approval or amusement; increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback or audience insight." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: the two emojis (😍😂). Emoji-only comments are common, lightweight signals of positive reaction but carry little informational value. On fakeness: an isolated emoji comment is uncertain — it can be genuine (a real follower reacting quickly) or part of low-effort bot-like behavior (bot farms and engagement pods often post generic emojis). Given the lack of context (no commenter profile, no timestamps, no other comments), I estimate a relatively low-to-moderate probability of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 30) but with limited confidence (45) because a single comment is not diagnostic. For influencer-ad feasibility: this single emoji comment is insufficient evidence to judge audience quality or engagement authenticity. The overall assessment is cautious/neutral (overall_score 40) with low confidence (35). Recommended next steps before any advertising decision: collect a larger sample of comments (look for conversational replies, unique questions, critique, and time distribution), inspect commenter accounts for real profiles and diverse behavior, check engagement rate vs follower count, and run automated authenticity checks (repeated phrases, rapid comment bursts, account age). Without that, relying on this comment alone is not advised." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement or approval with no substantive content. Serves to boost visible engagement (appearance of interaction) but provides no qualitative feedback. Could be genuine follower reaction or automated/low-quality engagement from bots or disengaged accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('😂😂') is available. Emoji-only comments are low-signal: they increase apparent engagement but do not indicate interest in products, intent to purchase, or detailed audience sentiment. Such comments are commonly left by real followers as quick reactions and are also frequently produced by bot farms or engagement pods to inflate metrics. Given one example, authenticity is ambiguous — hence a middling fakeness score and low confidence.\n\nFor advertising decisions this single comment is insufficient. To assess feasibility, request a larger sample of comments and examine: comment variety (questions, compliments, tagged friends), account quality of commenters (profile completeness, follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and repetition of identical short comments across posts. If the broader comment pool is dominated by short emoji or repeated generic replies, treat engagement quality as low and negotiate rates or decline. If the audience shows diverse, specific, and relevant comments from credible accounts, the influencer may be suitable.\n\nRecommendation: perform a deeper audit (200+ recent comments, top commenters analysis, follower authenticity checks) before proceeding with ad spend." }

Text: J’en rêve ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive emoji comment (organic fan engagement)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/desire for the product/post and provide lightweight social proof (engagement/boosting metrics). Minimal substantive information about intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single short comment: \"J’en rêve ❤️\" (French — \"I dream of it\"), which reads as a genuine positive reaction expressing desire. Short emoji-accompanied comments like this are common from real followers but are also easily reproduced by bots or purchased engagement; however, the use of natural French makes it more likely organic. With only one comment, the signal is weak: positive sentiment is present but volume, diversity, and conversational depth are lacking. For advertising-buy decisions this comment alone is insufficient evidence of an engaged, convertible audience. Recommend analyzing overall comment volume across multiple posts, reply rates, follower authenticity, engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), and presence of specific, detailed comments or questions that indicate purchase intent before committing to ad spend." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express affection/appreciation; simple engagement to signal approval and increase visible engagement metrics." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it contains three heart emojis (❤️❤️❤️). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers as lightweight positive feedback, but they are also frequently produced by low-effort bot accounts or comment farms because they are easy to automate. With a single data point there is very limited signal: this comment indicates positive sentiment but provides no information about purchase intent, audience quality, or authenticity. Recommended next steps before any advertising purchase: inspect the commenter profile (age, follower count, posting history), check for many similar emoji comments across multiple posts (pattern indicating automation), compare like-to-follower ratios on the post and across the influencer's recent posts, review comment timestamps for bursts, and sample a larger set of comments. Based on this single emoji comment, engagement quality appears low-information and insufficient alone to justify a significant ad spend." }

Text: Les aspirateurs robots DJI sont vraiment excellents ,ils ont une grande puissance d'aspiration.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive endorsement / generic praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Promote product or express satisfaction; likely meant to praise the brand and influence perception (could be genuine praise, a paid endorsement, or a generic/spam comment)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Les aspirateurs robots DJI sont vraiment excellents, ils ont une grande puissance d'aspiration.') is a short, positive endorsement that names the brand and highlights a product feature. Characteristics that raise suspicion of inauthenticity: very generic language, lack of personal detail or context (no user experience, timeframe, or specifics), and direct brand mention — patterns common in promotional/spam or bot comments. Given only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions; the comment could also be a genuine, succinct compliment from a real user. For advertising feasibility: this single comment provides weak evidence of authentic, engaged audience response. Before deciding to purchase advertising, request a larger comment sample and analyze: volume and variety of comments, repeating phrases/handles, timing spikes, commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, post history), engagement rates relative to follower count, and presence of explicit calls-to-action or affiliate language. Based on this isolated comment, I rate the likelihood of inauthenticity as moderately high (65/100) with moderate confidence, and the post's suitability for ad spend as below average (45/100) with moderate confidence." }

Text: J'ai adoré cette vidéo, elle m'a fait penser à Buster Keaton. Je suis aussi une grande fan de cet aspirateur robot ,il est incroyablement performant à tous points de vue.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive engagement / product endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enjoyment of the video (cultural reference to Buster Keaton) and explicitly endorse the featured product (robot vacuum)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is positive and fairly specific — it cites a comparison to Buster Keaton (a contextual, non-generic detail) and separately offers strong praise for the robot vacuum. Specific cultural reference reduces the chance of being a generic bot, but the unqualified superlative about product performance could be genuine enthusiasm or a brief promotional endorsement (affiliate/friendly follower). Given only one comment, this is weak evidence of broad authentic engagement; it indicates at least one engaged viewer who likes both the content and the product, but it does not confirm wide, organic interest or a pattern of authentic advocacy. For advertising decisions, request more data: comment volume and variety, commenter account profiles (age, activity, follower counts), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and presence of repeated/formulaic praise across comments. Based on this single comment, I assign a low-to-moderate fakeness risk (30/100) and a cautious, below-average suitability for ad purchase (45/100) with the confidences noted above." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement or positive affect in a single, low-effort token; signals surface engagement but provides no substantive feedback or endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "This sample consists of a single emoji-only comment (three laughing emojis). Emoji-only comments are common and can be posted by genuine followers or by low-effort/bot accounts; by themselves they are weak indicators of authentic, high-value engagement. Given the extremely small sample size, the fakeness assessment is uncertain — there is a modest chance this is bot-like or manufactured (repetitive/low-value engagement) but an equally plausible chance it is a genuine reaction. For an advertising feasibility decision you should not rely on this single comment. Recommended next steps: collect a larger comment sample (ideally hundreds), check whether identical emoji comments repeat across commenters or posts, examine commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history, profile pictures), compare comment rate to follower count and to likes, and look for substantive comments, questions, or purchase intent. Only with broader patterns (many identical short comments, new accounts with no content, or high comment-to-follower anomalies) can you reliably judge authenticity and influencer suitability." }

Text: Romo est tellement silencieux que je peux le laisser tourner la nuit. Mon ancien Ecovacs était beaucoup trop bruyant.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive, specific testimonial / product comparison", "count": 1, "purpose": "Endorsement and social proof — the commenter shares a personal experience comparing 'Romo' favorably to a previous 'Ecovacs', highlighting a concrete benefit (quiet operation) to persuade other readers." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a concise, product-specific endorsement: it cites a prior brand (Ecovacs) and a tangible attribute (silent enough to run overnight). Those details make it more likely to be genuine user feedback rather than a generic bot/spam praise, so the assessed fakeness is low (20/100) with moderate confidence. However, the sample size is just one comment, so overall confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility: the comment content is helpful (specific benefit mentioned), which increases persuasive value for potential buyers, but the low volume of similar comments reduces social-proof strength. Recommended next checks before committing ad spend: verify the commenter’s profile authenticity (account age, posting history, follower/following ratio), look for repeated, similar comments across posts, check timing patterns, and evaluate overall engagement (likes/comments ratio) on the post. Given current evidence, the post shows promising qualitative signals but limited quantity — moderate recommendation to test with a small campaign and perform deeper account vetting." }

Text: 🥰🥰🥰

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive emoji reaction (low-content)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express affection/approval and boost visible engagement; conveys positive sentiment but provides no topical feedback, intent to purchase, or informative interaction. Could be genuine follower or generic/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (\"🥰🥰🥰\") indicates a positive sentiment but is low-information. Emoji-only responses are common from real fans but are also frequently produced by low-effort engagement bots or purchased comment packs. With only one such comment, there is insufficient evidence of meaningful, authentic audience interest or topical engagement relevant to advertising decisions. For ad-buy feasibility this is a weak signal: it shows some positive reception but not the depth (questions, testimonials, tagged friends, long-form praise) that suggests engaged, convertible followers. Recommendation: inspect a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check commenter profiles for authenticity (real profile photos, posting history, follower counts, diversity of comments), look for repeated identical comments or timing patterns, and calculate comment-to-follower engagement rates before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (laughing emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; low informational value. Commonly used by genuine followers as lightweight engagement but also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or generic accounts to boost visible interaction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only laughter reaction (😂). This provides almost no substantive feedback about audience interest, intent to purchase, or product perception. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can be genuine but are also a common sign of low-effort engagement, coordinated liking/commenting, or bot activity. With only one comment and no contextual metadata (commenter profile, timing, repetition, like counts, or other comments), the signal is weak and unreliable for advertising-feasibility decisions. Recommendation: inspect commenter account(s) for authenticity (follower count/ratio, posting history, profile completeness), review the full comment set and timestamps for patterns, check overall engagement rate on the post and across recent posts, and look for substantive comments/questions as evidence of an engaged, relevant audience. Based solely on this comment, the post scores low for ad-targeting reliability." }

Text: DJI👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "brand mention / endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Name-check or positive mention of a brand (endorsement or association)." }, { "type": "low-effort positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief praise/emoji to increase visible engagement without substantive interaction." }, { "type": "possible bot / promotional spam", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short generic comment that could be automated or posted en masse to promote a brand or trigger engagement." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single short comment: \"DJI👍\". This is a low-effort, brand-focused message that can plausibly be either a real quick endorsement from a human fan or an automated/promotional comment. Short brand-only comments are common in inorganic engagement (bots, comment pods, or marketing accounts), so I rate the fakeness relatively high (65/100) but with moderate confidence because one comment is very limited evidence. For advertising decisions this comment is weak signal: it does not indicate meaningful audience interest, conversation, or purchase intent. Recommendation: request a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter profiles (age, activity, follower ratios), review like-to-comment ratios, comment timestamps, and run a follower authenticity audit before committing to ad spend. Based on this single comment, I would rate the influencer's comment quality / audience authenticity as low–moderate (30/100) with moderate confidence and advise further investigation." }

Text: J’adore 😂 je vais craquer sur le robot ... surtout pas sur le lapin par😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive endorsement / purchase intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses liking of the content/product and an intent to buy ('je vais craquer sur le robot'), while using emojis to convey tone." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads naturally in French, uses emojis and product-specific language (mentions 'robot' and 'lapin'), and expresses both enjoyment and a likely purchase intent. These features reduce the likelihood of it being bot-generated or paid promotion text. Fakeness is low (10/100) with moderate-high confidence (75) because the phrasing is specific and conversational, but assessment is limited by having only one comment. Overall suitability for advertising is cautiously positive (60/100) but with low confidence (40) because the sample is too small to judge general audience authenticity or engagement quality. Recommended next steps: inspect a larger sample of comments for repetition or templated phrasing, check commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting behavior), compare likes-to-comments ratio, and look for clusters of similar messages that would indicate inauthentic activity." }

Text: J’aime bcp le scénario 😁🐰

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "compliment / positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation for the post's scenario/creative content and provide lightweight engagement" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('J’aime bcp le scénario 😁🐰') is a short, natural-looking compliment in French with emoji use. It appears genuine (informal phrasing, abbreviation 'bcp', emoji) and serves to signal positive reception of the content. However, one comment is insufficient to judge the overall community quality or engagement depth. There are no clear signs of bot-like traits (repetitive templated phrasing, links, irrelevant hashtags), but low comment volume suggests limited engagement or that this sample is small. For advertising decisions, this alone is weak evidence — recommend reviewing larger samples (many posts), engagement rate (likes/comments vs. followers), recurring commenter IDs, timing patterns, and follower authenticity before purchasing. Overall, current comment evidence slightly positive but too sparse to support a strong recommendation." }

Text: J’adore tes idées 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic compliment / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "social proof / positive feedback / lightweight engagement (shows approval but not specific interest)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"J’adore tes idées 😍😍\" (\"I love your ideas\"). This is a short, positive, generic compliment that could come from a genuine follower or from automated/generic engagement. Indicators toward authenticity: natural French, correct punctuation and emoji use consistent with a real user. Indicators toward being inauthentic: high-level generic praise without specifics — a common pattern in bot/farm comments. Given a single comment, the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions, so confidence is low. For advertising feasibility this comment alone is weak evidence of an engaged, brand-relevant audience: it provides social proof but no demonstrated intent (no question, no mention of product, no saves/shares). Recommendation: collect more data before a buying decision — sample of 50–200 recent comments, commenter profile checks (account age, follower counts, posting history, avatar, language match), engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), variety of comment types (questions, detailed praise, critiques), and timing patterns (bursting). If many comments are similar generic praise, raise fakeness concern and discount the influencer’s quoted reach. If comments are varied and specific, increase the influencer score and confidence." }

Text: 👏👏❤😘😘😘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/enthusiasm; low-effort engagement, likely not providing purchase intent or meaningful feedback" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only positive reaction (clapping, heart, kisses). Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine casual followers and from bots/engagement pods; with only one example there is insufficient evidence to firmly classify it as authentic or fake. For advertising decisions this comment represents very low-quality engagement — it signals positivity but not interest, intent, or detailed engagement. Recommendation: do not rely on this alone; evaluate a larger sample of comments, overall engagement rate (likes vs. followers), comment diversity and substance, commenter account credibility, and temporal patterns before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/affection; low-effort engagement commonly used by genuine followers but also common among bots or engagement pods." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a heart emoji. This is a low-information, low-effort interaction that can mean genuine appreciation, habit-like engagement (quick reaction), or automated/paid engagement. Because there is only one comment, it's not possible to judge patterns (repetition, diversity of commenters, comment specificity) that would indicate organic vs. fake engagement. The moderate-to-high fakeness score reflects that generic emoji comments are frequently seen in inauthentic engagement and offer little signal of real audience interest. Confidence in that judgment is low-to-moderate due to the extremely small sample size. For an advertising feasibility decision, this single emoji comment should not be taken as evidence of a healthy, engaged audience. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments (preferably across multiple recent posts), inspect commenter profiles for completeness and follower counts, check comment timing for bursts, measure likes-to-followers and comments-to-followers ratios, and look for repeated identical comments or accounts — these will provide stronger signals to assess authenticity and ad ROI potential." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/enthusiasm and provide social proof; low informational value and low purchase intent signal" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only reaction (multiple claps, hearts, fire) expressing positive sentiment. Emoji-only comments are common among genuine fans but are also easy for bots, engagement pods, or purchased comments to generate, so they carry moderate suspicion. As a signal for advertising feasibility this comment is weak: it shows sentiment but not meaningful engagement, questions, or purchase intent. Recommendation: run a broader comment audit (volume, diversity of commenters, repetitive patterns, account ages, timestamp clustering), check overall engagement rate and past campaign performance before purchasing advertising. Given currently available evidence, I rate the comment authenticity as moderately suspicious and the post’s comment quality as below ideal for predicting ad performance." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/affection and provide lightweight engagement (social proof). Low information content; could be organic fan response or generic/automated engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of two heart emojis. Emoji-only comments provide very little signal about audience quality or intent: they indicate positive sentiment or passive engagement but do not demonstrate consideration, relevance, or conversion intent. Such comments are common both from genuine followers and from low-effort bot accounts, so authenticity cannot be confidently determined from this data alone. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this level of comment engagement is weak — it shows some baseline interaction but lacks depth. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, examine commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), review like counts and reach/engagement rate over multiple posts, and check timing/patterns of comments to detect automation before making a buy decision." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥 Bravo 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short emoji-heavy praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/approval; increases visible engagement (likes/comments) but provides no substantive feedback. Could be genuine fan response, engagement-pod activity, or low-effort/bot comment." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: '🔥🔥🔥 Bravo 🔥🔥🔥'. This is a generic, high-positivity, low-information response. Such comments are common both from real followers who want to quickly praise a post and from automated/low-effort accounts aiming to inflate engagement. Because the sample size is one, confidence in labeling this specific comment as fake vs. genuine is limited. The emoji-heavy, non-specific nature lowers its value as evidence of an engaged, interested audience — it signals surface-level engagement rather than meaningful interest or purchase intent. For advertising-buy decisions, this single comment is insufficient. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for diversity (length, specificity, questions, tagging), check commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, activity, account ages), look at interaction metrics (likes on comments, saves, story views, reach, follower-to-comment ratio), and search for repetitive or templated wording across comments. If a significant share of comments are similar generic emoji/praise (e.g., >50%), treat engagement as low-quality and request deeper verification or audience-targeting evidence before purchasing. If most other comments are substantive and from credible accounts, the post may still be valuable despite isolated short praises." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive/applause reaction — indicates approval or encouragement but carries no substantive feedback, purchase intent, or conversation starter. Such short emoji comments are low-information and commonly appear from both real casual users and automated/engagement-for-hire accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Dataset: a single comment consisting of three clapping-hand emojis. Limitations: sample size is minimal (one comment), so any authenticity or quality assessment has low confidence. Interpretation: the comment is a generic, low-effort positive reaction. This type of comment is ambiguous — it may be genuine casual engagement from a follower or easily produced by bots or engagement services. Because there is no linguistic content, no profile context for the commenter, no timestamps, and no additional comments to compare patterns, detection of coordinated or fake behavior is unreliable. For influencer advertising feasibility: current comment signal is weak. A single generic emoji does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, intent, or targeted engagement. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments and metadata (commenter profiles, follower counts, comment timestamps, repetition patterns, ratio of comments to views/likes, presence of brand/product-related comments, and unique conversational replies). With only this comment, treat the post's comment-driven credibility as low and proceed cautiously before purchasing advertising." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive reaction/praise and engagement. Low informational value — signals approval or encouragement but does not reference post content or indicate meaningful interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is five clapping-hands emojis, a low-effort, generic positive reaction. Such comments are common from both casual followers and automated/spam accounts, so there is a moderate probability of inauthenticity (hence a fakeness score around 60) but limited confidence because the sample is just one short comment. For influencer advertising decisions this comment provides almost no evidence of strong, authentic audience interest or topical engagement. Recommendation: review a larger set of comments, the commenters' account profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), like-to-follow ratios, comment diversity, timing patterns, and presence of substantive, content-specific comments before making an ad purchase decision. Based on this single comment alone, the post rates low (30/100) for reliable, high-quality engagement." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive reaction/enthusiasm; low-effort engagement likely to boost apparent popularity (visibility/algorithmic signal)." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment available and it consists solely of three fire emojis (\"🔥🔥🔥\"). Emoji-only comments are very common and can be either genuine low-effort responses from real followers or part of mass/paid engagement campaigns; they provide weak evidence about audience authenticity or meaningful interest. Because the comment is generic and contains no personal reference, it leans toward low-effort engagement which increases the probability of being inorganic. For advertising feasibility: the single emoji comment does not demonstrate strong, authentic audience interaction or conversational engagement. I recommend further checks before buying advertising: examine total comment volume and diversity, comment timestamps (burst patterns), profiles of commenters (real-looking bios, posting history, follower counts), overall engagement rate relative to follower count, and presence of substantive, specific comments. Based on this single comment, the post looks weak as evidence of a highly engaged, authentic audience." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reaction / praise / lightweight engagement; signals approval but provides no substantive feedback or intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short applause emoji sequence (\"👏👏👏\"). This is a generic positive engagement signal commonly used by real followers and by low-effort bot accounts alike. Given only one comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge the authenticity or commercial value of the audience. Low informational content and lack of diversity (no questions, no tagged users, no product-related comments) reduce the usefulness for ad-buy decisions. Recommendation: collect more comments and context (total comment volume, comment diversity, commenter profiles, timing, like-to-comment ratio and follower overlap) before making an advertising purchase. Current snapshot suggests modest genuine engagement but is not strong enough to justify a high-confidence ad investment." }

Text: 😍😍😍🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressing enthusiasm/approval; low-effort engagement that signals positive sentiment but provides no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a sequence of heart‑eye and fire emojis. Emoji‑only replies are commonly used by real followers to quickly show appreciation, but they are also frequently generated by bots, engagement pods, or low-effort accounts. With a single short, non‑specific comment there is limited information about audience quality, authenticity, or purchase intent. Given the ambiguity, I rate the comment set as moderately likely to be fake/low‑value (fakeness_score 60, confidence 50). For advertising decisions this evidence is weak: the interaction shows positive sentiment but no depth. Overall feasibility for ad purchase based on these comments alone is below neutral (overall_score 45) with low confidence (40). Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, check comment diversity and timing, inspect follower accounts for authenticity, calculate engagement rate versus follower count, and look for long-form, specific, and conversational comments as indicators of genuine audience interest before proceeding with an ad buy." }

Text: Winner🙌❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction / supportive token", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise/encouragement and simple engagement (emoji + short text) to show support and boost visible engagement; low informational value about audience intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Winner🙌❤️' is a generic, positive engagement token. This type of short, emoji-accompanied praise is common among genuine fans but is also frequently produced by bots or engagement farms because it is low-effort and broadly applicable. With only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall audience authenticity or commercial responsiveness. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, examine commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), look for conversational replies or specific references to content, and check engagement ratios (likes/comments relative to follower count) before deciding on ad spend. Current signals lean toward caution — modest likelihood of inauthenticity (hence fakeness_score 40) and a low-to-moderate suitability for advertising based solely on this comment (overall_score 30)." }

Text: Girlboss 🔥🩷🌸

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive/supportive (compliment + emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/support, provide social validation, and increase visible engagement on the post" } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is one short comment: \"Girlboss 🔥🩷🌸\". This is a generic positive fan-style remark combining a slogan-like compliment and emojis. Such comments commonly come from genuine followers or casual fans but are also frequently produced by low-effort bot accounts or engagement farms. Given only this single example, I assess a low-to-moderate likelihood of being fake (fakeness_score 25) but have limited confidence (35) because there is no contextual data (author profile, timestamp, other comments, repetition patterns, like counts). For ad-purchase feasibility the evidence here is weak: one generic supportive comment does not demonstrate meaningful, engaged, or targeted audience interaction. Overall suitability score 30 with low confidence (30). Recommendation: request the full comments stream for the post (or multiple recent posts), commenter account metadata (age, follower counts, activity), comment timing patterns, and engagement rates (likes per post, comments per follower) to make a reliable decision. Specific red flags to check for are many short generic comments repeating the same words/emojis, accounts with few followers or very high followings, and bursts of comments in short time windows." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji applause (repetitive clapping emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic approval/encouragement; low-effort engagement that signals positive reaction but provides no substantive feedback. Such comments can be posted by genuine followers, casual lurkers, or automated/engagement-for-engagement accounts." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment consisting of repeated clapping emojis. This is a minimal, low-information engagement signal: it increases visible engagement but does not indicate meaningful conversation, purchase intent, or audience authenticity by itself. Repetitive single-emoji comments are common both among real followers (quick praise) and inorganic accounts/bots (bulk or low-effort commenting). Given only one comment, the evidence is insufficient to assert authenticity confidently. For influencer advertising decisions, this comment alone is weak positive signal — it shows some enthusiasm but not verifiable interest. Recommend further checks before buying ad space: examine comment diversity and volume across recent posts, inspect commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts), compare like-to-comment ratios, check timing patterns (many comments in short bursts), and look for repeated identical comments across multiple posts. Based on the single emoji comment, I assign a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness 45/100) with low-to-moderate confidence, and an overall suitability for advertising that is low (30/100) pending deeper audience quality checks." }

Text: La meilleure toi 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short compliment / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "positive reinforcement and social approval (fan praise); increases perceived persona likability and post engagement but does not indicate purchase intent or detailed interest" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"La meilleure toi 😍\" is a short, generic compliment with an emoji. Such comments are common from genuine followers expressing admiration, but they are also typical of low-effort bot comments and engagement pods—hence a moderate fakeness likelihood (estimated 30%). As a signal for advertising-readiness, this comment alone is weak: it shows positive sentiment but no substantive interest, no question, no mention of the product/service, and no clear purchase intent. Recommendation: inspect the commenter account (activity, follower/following ratio, profile photo, other comments), check comment diversity and timing across multiple posts, and compare comment-to-like ratios to judge authenticity before committing to ad spend." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (clapping)", "count": 1, "purpose": "short positive feedback/approval; low-effort engagement that signals support and can boost visibility. Often genuine but also commonly used in engagement pods or by automated accounts." } ], "interpretation": "There is only one comment: two clapping-hand emojis. That provides extremely limited signal about audience quality or authenticity. Emoji-only comments are low-information: they indicate positive sentiment and contribute to apparent engagement, but they are easy to produce by real followers, engagement pods, or bots. Given a single low-effort comment, I cannot reliably judge comment authenticity or audience quality — hence a neutral fakeness estimate (50) with low confidence. For ad-buy decisions this is weak evidence: overall feasibility score is low (30) with low confidence because you need more data (total comment volume, variety of comments, commenter profiles, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratio, follower quality, and repeated behavior). Recommended next steps: gather a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter accounts (age, follower counts, posting history), check for repeated generic comments, analyze engagement rate against follower count, and run follower-audit checks (follower growth spikes, bot indicators)." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express praise/approval and increase visible engagement; low informational content about real interest or purchase intent" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: a sequence of clapping emojis (\"👏👏👏\"). Emoji-only comments are common and signal positive sentiment but carry very little information about the commenter (no textual content, no specific endorsement). Such comments can be genuine followers showing appreciation, but they are also commonly produced by low-effort accounts or automated engagements. Given the single, low-information comment, there's insufficient evidence to reliably judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising-buy decisions, this sample is weak: it neither demonstrates strong, specific audience enthusiasm nor reveals audience relevance or intent. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments for diversity and specificity, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts vs. bot-like signals (profile pictures, posting history, follower counts), check comment timing patterns, overall engagement rate relative to follower count, and past campaign performance metrics before making a purchase decision." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_like", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple positive reaction/affection; low-effort engagement that signals sentiment but provides no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: a heart emoji (\"❤️\"). This is a low-information, positive reaction. Such comments frequently come from genuine followers who want to show appreciation quickly, but they are also commonly produced by low-effort bot accounts or engagement farms. With only one comment there is insufficient evidence to confidently assess authenticity or community quality. For advertising feasibility: the presence of a lone heart indicates positive sentiment but offers minimal proof of meaningful audience interest or targeted engagement. Recommendation: gather a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity patterns), check comment timestamps and like counts, and compare comment content diversity before making an ad purchase decision. Based on this single data point, I rate the likelihood of inorganic engagement as modest (fakeness 25/100) and the post's suitability for advertising as low-to-moderate (overall 30/100), with limited confidence." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short positive reaction (approval/excitement). Low informational value — signals engagement but not substantive endorsement. Such comments can be genuine follower reactions or generic/bot-driven engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three fire emojis (\"🔥🔥🔥\"). This is an ambiguous, low-signal form of engagement. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement farms because they are quick and visible. With a single short emoji comment, there is insufficient evidence to determine authenticity or audience quality. For advertising feasibility, this comment alone does not demonstrate meaningful endorsement, intent to purchase, or high-quality community interaction. Recommended next steps before buying ads: inspect a larger sample of recent comments (look for substantive replies, questions, or repeated patterns), audit commenter accounts for completeness and activity, calculate engagement rate relative to follower count, review story views and saves, and check past sponsored-post performance. Based on the available data the risk of inauthentic engagement is moderate-to-high and confidence in any strong conclusion is low; further data is required for a reliable decision." }

Text: ❤️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express praise/enthusiasm and provide social validation; low informational value and no clear purchase intent — could be a genuine fan, a follower giving quick reaction, or part of an engagement pod/bot activity" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists solely of hearts and fire emojis. Emoji-only comments offer social proof but carry little actionable insight into audience quality or purchase intent. Such comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement pods; with only one example, authenticity is indeterminate. For advertising-feasibility decisions this sample is insufficient: the apparent engagement is superficial and does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest or conversion signals. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent posts for volume and variety of comments, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, language, activity), check for repeated identical comments across posts, compare comment-to-like ratios and engagement rate, and look for substantive comments that indicate genuine interest. Based on the single emoji comment, I assign a moderate fakeness risk and a low overall confidence in suitability for ad purchase — do not rely on this post alone to make a buying decision." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick expression of approval or excitement; low-information engagement that increases visible activity but gives no qualitative feedback. Often originates from genuine fans, engagement pods, or low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment consists of three fire emojis — a generic, low-information positive reaction. This is ambiguous: it could be an authentic fan expressing enthusiasm, but it is also the type of short, repeatable content commonly produced by engagement pods or automated/batch accounts. Given only one such comment and no context (commenter handle, timing, volume of similar comments, likes on the comment, or other qualitative replies), the likelihood of inauthenticity is moderate (fakeness_score 65). For advertising feasibility this comment provides almost no evidence of meaningful audience intent or quality engagement. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: collect a larger sample of comments (including commenter profile links and timestamps), check for clustering of identical short comments, evaluate proportion of substantive comments (questions, personal stories, tagging), measure saves/shares and conversion metrics, and audit follower authenticity (follower growth spikes, follower-to-engagement ratio). Without that additional data, treat the post’s comment signal as weak and risky for campaign targeting." }

Text: 😍❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/affection; low-effort engagement that boosts visible interaction and algorithmic reach but carries little informative value about genuine interest or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only positive reaction (heart/heart-eyes). This is common from genuine fans but is also the easiest form of engagement for bots or mass-comment campaigns, so its authenticity is ambiguous. With only one low-information comment, you cannot reliably judge audience quality or ad-readiness. Recommended actions before purchase: examine a larger sample of recent comments for patterns (proportion of emoji-only, repeated phrases, account profiles), check commenter accounts for real profiles and posting history, review engagement rate versus follower count, and look for meaningful conversations or questions that indicate real interest. Current signal is weak — treat this post's comments as low-quality evidence for influencer effectiveness." }

Text: ❤️🔥 trop forte

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive praise with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/support and provide social proof; simple engagement to signal approval." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('❤️🔥 trop forte') is a brief, natural-sounding French praise with emojis. It reads as genuine follower engagement (positive sentiment, informal language) rather than a generic or templated bot comment. Fakeness is therefore low, but confidence is limited because this is only one comment — small sample size prevents strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising feasibility: the comment indicates positive sentiment but provides no information about audience size, diversity, conversion intent, or sustained engagement. Recommendation: evaluate a larger sample of recent posts for volume of comments, repetition patterns (identical short praises), commenter account quality (real profiles, follower counts, posting history), likes per comment, and follower overlap to better assess authenticity and ROI potential." }

Text: Coucou du vlog 👋🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "greeting/engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short, friendly acknowledgement of content (likely a viewer greeting the creator or signalling they are watching the vlog); serves to increase visible engagement and rapport." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment was provided: \"Coucou du vlog 👋🏼\". This reads as a simple personal greeting from a viewer and shows basic genuine engagement rather than an explicit promotional, spammy, or bot-like pattern. Fakeness is assessed low (10/100) but with moderate confidence because a single, generic comment is insufficient to reliably judge audience authenticity. For advertising-feasibility decisions this sample is far too small: you cannot infer engagement quality, audience relevance, or presence of inorganic activity from one comment. Recommended next steps: collect a larger, time-bounded sample of comments (50–200), check commenter profiles for account age, follower counts, and posting behavior, examine comment-to-like ratios and comment likes/replies, and review comment timing patterns. With that additional data you can produce a higher-confidence assessment and a more actionable overall score for ad purchase decisions." }

Text: Et si on s’entraine pas on peut quand meme manger la barre? 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Humor / Engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "To joke and engage with the post while expressing mild interest/curiosity about the product (asking if eating the bar is allowed without training)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (French, colloquial, with a laughing emoji) reads as a light-hearted, genuine follower interaction rather than a templated or promotional bot message. It serves to engage the creator, inject humor, and implicitly references the product or claim in the post (asking if one can still eat the bar without training). There are no clear bot indicators (no generic praise, no links, natural language and emoji). Given the sample size of one comment, this is very limited evidence: the comment is a positive signal for audience engagement but insufficient to judge overall audience quality or influencer reliability for ads. Recommendation: analyze a larger comment sample, commenter account authenticity (followers, posting history), comment-to-follower ratio, and presence of repetitive or copy-paste comments before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: @stefanypellegalle le message est clair 😂 bon nous c’est plus la raclette que la barre protéinée 😬

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Reply / conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Social interaction: tagging a friend, expressing personal preference (humorous agreement/contrast with post). Not promotional; serves to engage the tagged user and show personal reaction." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears organic and conversational: it tags another user, uses emojis, expresses a personal taste (preferring raclette over a protein bar) and contains no overt promotional language or repeated templated phrasing. Fakeness risk is low because content is specific, contextual and informal. However, one comment is a very small sample for influencer ad-buy decisions — you cannot assess audience authenticity, engagement rate, sentiment distribution, or presence of coordinated comments from this alone. For an advertising feasibility decision, request a larger sample (many comments across multiple posts, timestamps, like counts, follower overlap, repeated phrases, and bot indicators) and analyze ratio of genuine conversational replies versus generic praise/emoji/commenter accounts. Based on this single comment the environment looks benign and potentially valuable, but confidence is limited." }

Text: C est motivant !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / Positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express encouragement and approval; provides lightweight social proof and signals positive reception of the post." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short, generic positive comment is available (\"C est motivant !\" / \"C'est motivant!\" = \"That's motivating!\"). This type of comment is common for authentic viewers reacting positively, but it is also the kind of minimal message that can be produced by bots or by casual, low-effort engagement. Given the small sample size, the fakeness score is low-to-moderate (15) but with limited confidence (50%).\n\nFor influencer-advertising decisions this single comment provides weak evidence: it indicates at least some positive audience reaction, but it does not demonstrate strong, engaged, or specific interest (no product mentions, questions, tagging, or conversation). The overall suitability score (45) reflects that the comment neither strengthens nor decisively undermines the case for a paid partnership — more data is required. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments for variety and depth, measure like-to-follower and comment-to-follower ratios, check follower authenticity, look for repeated templated language across comments, and review stories/saves and direct audience demographics before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Entraîne toi quand t'as envie . La pression et la culpabilité c'est nase.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Supportive / Personal advice", "count": 1, "purpose": "Encourage the poster, normalize behavior, reduce pressure/guilt; community-building and genuine engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“Entraîne toi quand t'as envie. La pression et la culpabilité c'est nase.”) reads as a natural, informal French message offering supportive advice and emotional validation. It contains colloquial phrasing and a clear personal tone, with no promotional language, tags, emojis-only pattern, or generic one-word praise that often characterizes inorganic comments. That suggests low likelihood of being fake or bot-generated. For influencer advertising feasibility this comment is positive (signals a sympathetic, authentic audience), but it is only one data point — low volume of varied engagement reduces confidence that the account has broad, high-quality interaction. Overall, the comment is qualitatively good but insufficient alone to judge audience strength for ad purchases; recommend examining comment volume, diversity (questions, mentions, critiques), timestamps, follower overlap, and other posts for a robust assessment." }

Text: C'est toi qui leur fera peur 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/humorous follower", "count": 1, "purpose": "Friendly joking/banter; express familiarity and positive engagement (empathy/encouragement), not promotional" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"C'est toi qui leur fera peur 😂\" reads as an organic, friendly/humorous reply likely from a follower or friend. The use of direct address, casual phrasing and an emoji suggest a real person rather than a bot or spam account. There are no markers of promotional or copy-paste generic comments (no links, no repeated praise phrases). Given only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or community quality; confidence is moderate. For advertising feasibility, this comment is mildly positive but insufficient evidence—recommend examining a larger set of recent comments, commenter account quality (age, followers, activity), comment diversity, timing patterns, and commenter-post interaction history before making a purchase decision." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 0, "fakeness_confidence": 0, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 0, "comment_types": [], "interpretation": "No comments were provided for analysis. I cannot classify comment types, estimate fakeness, or judge advertising feasibility without the actual comment text (and ideally usernames/timestamps/profiles). To proceed, please paste the comments (or a representative sample). If helpful, include whether the post is recent, the influencer's follower count, and any known promotion details. Typical comment categories I will look for when you provide data: 1) Genuine engagement — specific questions, detailed praise, personal anecdotes (purpose: organic interest/trust). 2) Simple engagement — emojis, short praises like “😍”, “Nice!” (purpose: low-effort approval, often real but low signal). 3) Promotional/spam — links, product promos, repeated ad copy (purpose: spam/affiliate). 4) Bot/duplicate comments — repeated phrasing across accounts, generic compliments (purpose: inauthentic engagement). 5) Micro-influencer/networking — mentions of collabs, tag-for-tag (purpose: cross-promotion). 6) Complaint/negative feedback — criticism or questions about product/service (purpose: genuine consumer signal). When you provide the comments I will: count each type, estimate a fakeness percentage (0–100) with confidence, and give an overall recommendation for ad buy feasibility." }

Text: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "expressive_laughter / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "To express strong amusement, sarcasm, mockery, or to add minimal engagement (filler). Short repetitive-laughter comments can be genuine reactions or low-effort/bot activity intended to boost visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA') was provided, so any assessment is preliminary and limited. This comment is a non-specific, high-arousal reaction that commonly appears both in genuine audience responses (laughing at content) and in inorganic engagement (short repetitive text from low-effort accounts or bots). Indicators that would raise suspicion include many identical comments across posts, accounts with no profiles or many similar comments, and rapid repeated posting. Indicators of genuine engagement would include diverse, contextual comments from identifiable accounts. Given the single example, I estimate a moderate likelihood of being inorganic (fakeness_score 45) but with low confidence (40) because one short comment is ambiguous. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience; the overall suitability score is low (30) with low confidence (35). I recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter account quality (age, follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, comment timestamps, and patterns across multiple posts before making buy decisions." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction and provide low-information engagement/social proof. Easy to post and therefore commonly used both by genuine followers and by bots/engagement farms to inflate visible interaction." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: four laughing emojis. This is a low-information data point — it signals positive emotional reaction and some engagement but gives no insight into audience relevance, intent to purchase, or depth of interest. Emoji-only comments are inexpensive to fabricate, so there is moderate risk they are not a reliable indicator of an engaged, authentic audience. Given the scarcity of comments, confidence in any authenticity judgment is limited. For advertising purchase decisions, I recommend further checks: inspect the commenter's profile for activity/realness, analyze comment diversity and timing across multiple posts, compare likes-to-comments ratios, and check follower quality. With current data, I rate overall comment authenticity and ad-readiness as below average; more data needed for a confident recommendation." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement / positive reaction; low-effort engagement that signals attention but provides no substantive endorsement or purchase intent. Could be genuine follower engagement or a generic/bot-like reply." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('😂😂') was provided, which is a very weak signal for influencer assessment. This comment type is low-effort and common both among real followers and automated/generic engagement services, so a moderate fakeness likelihood is assigned but with low confidence due to very limited data. You cannot reliably judge audience authenticity, sentiment depth, or conversion potential from one emoji. For an advertising decision, request a larger sample of comments, time stamps, like counts, follower demographics, engagement rate, top commenters and follower growth patterns; run bot/fraud checks (repeated short comments, identical phrases, suspicious account creation dates) before concluding. Based on the single emoji alone, the post shows minimal meaningful engagement and would not be a strong positive indicator for ad purchase without further evidence." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or quick acknowledgement; low-effort engagement that increases visible activity but conveys no purchase intent or substantive endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: a laughing emoji (😂). This is a low-information, low-effort interaction that is common both from genuine users and from bot/engagement farms. As a signal for advertising suitability it is weak — it does not indicate interest in products, intent to purchase, nor meaningful audience sentiment. Short emoji comments are also a common tactic to inflate engagement artificially, so there is moderate risk of inauthenticity. Recommendation: do not base an advertising buy on this alone; require a broader sample of comments, look for substantive comments, conversation threads, consistency across posts, like-to-comment ratios, follower quality (audience demographics, follower growth patterns), and check for many similar short comments or rapid-repeat commenters which would increase fakeness likelihood." }

Text: J'adore 🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / Generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/amusement and provide light engagement (short positive reaction with emojis)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'J'adore 🤣🤣' is a short, positive reaction expressing amusement/liking. It is low-effort and typical of genuine follower engagement but is also the kind of brief comment that can be produced by bots or purchased accounts, so I rate fakeness as low-to-moderate (20) with moderate confidence (70). Because there is only one comment to analyze, this is very limited evidence about overall audience quality. For advertising feasibility I rate the comment-level signal moderate (45) with moderate confidence (60) — positive sentiment is present but engagement depth and authenticity are uncertain. Recommend examining a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), comment timing patterns, and overall engagement rate (likes vs. comments) before making an ad buy decision." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval; lightweight engagement that signals reaction but provides no substantive content. Can come from a genuine follower or from low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment provided: four laughing emojis. This is a very low-information data point. Emoji-only comments commonly indicate casual engagement but do not reliably show genuine interest, intent to purchase, or influencer influence quality. The assessed fakeness is relatively low–many such comments are genuine quick reactions–but confidence is limited because one emoji comment alone is ambiguous and could also originate from automated or low-effort accounts. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is insufficient evidence of authentic, high-value audience engagement. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for variety (length, questions, mentions), check commenter profiles (real accounts vs. bots), measure like-to-comment ratios and comment timing patterns, and run a follower audit before making buy/sponsorship decisions." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only / low-effort reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or quick positive reaction; minimal conversational content and low informational value." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: four laughing emojis (😂😂😂😂). Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine quick reactions from real followers, but they are also typical of low-effort engagement produced by bots, engagement pods, or passive audience members. With only one comment there is insufficient evidence to reliably distinguish authentic audience interest from inorganic activity. The low-information nature of the comment reduces its value for assessing audience quality for advertising. \n\nRecommendations / next steps: collect more comments and metadata (timestamps, repeated commenters, likes per comment), check comment diversity, look for substantive comments/questions, examine follower quality and follower-to-engagement ratio, and analyze patterns (many identical emoji comments across posts, sudden comment spikes, short account lifespans). Given the limited input, I rate the likelihood of fakeness as moderate (40) with moderate uncertainty, and I give a cautious overall suitability score for ad purchase (30) with moderate confidence. Further data will significantly change these assessments." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement or positive reaction; low-effort engagement that signals sentiment but provides no purchase intent or detailed feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment (two laughing emojis) is available. This is a low-effort, positive-reactive comment type that increases raw engagement but carries little informational value about audience quality, intent to buy, or influencer influence depth. Such emoji comments are common from genuine followers but are also easily generated by bots or mass-engagement services, so there's a non-negligible chance of inauthenticity. With this tiny sample the comments are insufficient to judge advertising feasibility — they indicate momentary positive sentiment but not active interest or conversion potential. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments, measure ratio of substantive comments to emojis, check commenter profiles for authenticity (follower counts, activity, avatars), and combine with likes, reach, saves, and story interactions before deciding on ad purchase." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/positive reaction; low-information engagement that increases visible interaction but doesn't indicate purchase intent or topical discussion" } ], "interpretation": "The comment is four 'laughing' emojis (😂😂😂😂). This is an emoji-only, low-information reaction: it signals amusement or approval but provides no substantive feedback, product interest, or conversational value. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also trivial for bots or engagement services to produce; with a single comment it's not possible to reliably distinguish authenticity. As a signal for advertising feasibility this comment is weak — it increases surface-level engagement but does not demonstrate purchase intent, audience relevance, or meaningful influencer-follower interaction. Recommendation: gather more comments, assess commenter uniqueness, follower quality, comment diversity (questions, testimonials, tagged users), timing patterns, and reply threads before making buying decisions." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive reaction; low informational content. Often used to signal engagement without substantive feedback; can be genuine casual response or part of engagement pods/bot activity." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists solely of four laughing emojis (😂😂😂😂). This is a low-signal, low-effort engagement type: it increases visible engagement count but provides no audience insight (no sentiment beyond amusement, no purchase intent, no demographic cues). Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine followers and from coordinated engagement (pods) or low-effort bot farms, so authenticity is ambiguous — I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood. Given the single, non-substantive comment, the comment section does not provide reliable evidence of an engaged, high-quality audience; therefore advertising suitability based on comments alone is low. Recommended next steps before any ad buy: review a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check like-to-follower ratio, perform a follower quality audit (look for suspicious accounts), and examine story interactions and saved/share metrics for stronger signals of genuine interest." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement indicating the user saw the post but provided no substantive feedback or intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"🤣🤣🤣\". This is a low-effort, positive-reactive comment (emoji-only) which is common for organic audience responses but provides no substantive signal about product interest, intent to buy, or genuine community conversation. Given the tiny sample size, the fakeness risk appears low-to-moderate (many bots also post simple emojis, but emojis are more often human). Confidence is limited because one comment is insufficient to characterise the commenter base or detect coordinated behavior. For advertising feasibility this single emoji comment is weak evidence of an engaged, conversion-ready audience. Recommended next steps before purchase: obtain a larger sample of comments (diversity, length, mentions of product/brand), check like-to-follower and comment-to-like ratios, review timing/distribution of comments, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (profile age, followers, posting activity), and look for recurring commenters and meaningful conversations. Based on current minimal evidence, I would rate suitability for ad spend as low–moderate; more data required for a reliable decision." }

Text: 😭😭😭😭😭

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emotional reaction (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express emotion (sadness/upset/strong reaction) or empathy for the post content; simple engagement without additional information." }, { "type": "Generic engagement (no text)", "count": 0, "purpose": "Placeholder for short non-specific reactions (e.g., '🔥', '😍') — none present beyond the crying emojis." }, { "type": "Promotional/spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "Comments meant to advertise or link out (not present)." }, { "type": "Bot-like/duplicative", "count": 0, "purpose": "Highly repetitive/goofy comments or exact duplicates typical of bots (not observed)." }, { "type": "Question/request/interaction", "count": 0, "purpose": "Asking questions or requesting info (none present)." }, { "type": "Tagging/mentioning others", "count": 0, "purpose": "Comments that tag other accounts to boost visibility (none present)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: five crying-face emojis. This is an emotional reaction indicating sadness/upset or intense emotional engagement with the post content, but it carries no informational value about follower authenticity, purchase intent, or sentiment beyond immediate affect. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers; they can also be left by low-effort bots, but there is no evidence of bot-like patterns (no duplicates, no promotional text, no links). Given the single data point, the fakeness estimate is low-to-moderate (20) but with limited confidence (35) because one emoji comment is insufficient to judge authenticity reliably. For advertising feasibility, this single comment gives very weak support — it shows some emotional engagement but not the variety, depth, or volume of comments advertisers typically want to assess audience quality. Overall score (25) reflects low confidence in concluding the audience is high-quality for ads based solely on this comment. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of recent comments (including timestamps), overall comment volume relative to follower count, repetition patterns, language variety, presence of questions/conversions, ratio of emoji-only to substantive comments, and follower audit (follower growth spikes, follower/following ratios). Those data points will allow a meaningful assessment of comment authenticity and ad-fit." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick reaction/express amusement. Low-effort engagement that signals a positive emotional response but does not provide substantive endorsement, feedback, or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists of four laughing emojis. Emoji-only comments are common, low-effort engagement: they increase visible engagement metrics but carry little informational value about audience quality or conversion intent. With a single emoji comment it is not possible to reliably judge authenticity — it could be a genuine spontaneous reaction or a low-value bot/spam entry. For advertising decisions this is a weak signal. Recommended next steps: examine a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check commenter profiles for real-account signals (profile photos, activity, followers), look for repeated identical emoji comments from many accounts (bot pattern), and evaluate overall engagement rate and comment diversity. Based on this single comment, I give a moderate suitability score (55) with limited confidence; do more comprehensive comment and follower analysis before purchasing ad inventory." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive reaction/support; low-effort engagement used as social approval or acknowledgement" } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment consisting of a heart emoji. Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine followers (quick positive reactions) and from low-effort or automated accounts used to inflate engagement. With only this comment and no metadata (commenter account age, follower/following counts, comment timestamps or other comments), authenticity cannot be reliably determined — hence a moderate fakeness score and low confidence. For advertising decisions this single heart is weak evidence of a high-quality, engaged audience: it signals positive sentiment but not meaningful conversation, product interest, or audience depth. Recommended next steps before purchase: examine larger sample of comments for variety and substance, inspect commenter account quality (realistic profiles, posting history, follower ratios), check like-to-comment ratios and engagement over time, and look for repetitive or templated comments across posts." }

Text: Le bonheur ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive compliment / emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses appreciation and positive sentiment toward the post; lightweight engagement (emotional reaction rather than detailed feedback)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Le bonheur ❤️\" is a brief, positive, likely genuine reaction (French: \"Happiness\" with a heart). Its language and content are consistent with organic audience praise or an emotionally driven response rather than promotional copy or obvious bot syntax. However, with only one comment provided, the sample is far too small to draw robust conclusions about the overall authenticity or engagement quality of the influencer's audience. The low fakeness score reflects that this comment does not exhibit common bot/spam characteristics, but the confidence is moderate because isolated comments can still be part of coordinated or purchased engagement patterns when viewed in aggregate. For advertising-feasibility: there is insufficient evidence to recommend a spend decision. The tentative overall score is conservative (40) because positive sentiment is present but there is no data on comment volume, diversity, timing, like-to-follower ratio, follower authenticity, or repeated patterns across posts. Recommended next steps: obtain a larger sample of comments from multiple posts, metrics on likes/engagement rates, follower demographics and growth history, and checks for repeated/generic comments across posts to better assess authenticity and ad suitability." }

Text: Wooooowww se ve delicioso!! Y tu estás muy guapa!😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / Compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for the food and influencer's appearance; positive sentiment to show approval and boost social proof." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment is a short, enthusiastic compliment in Spanish with emoji (\"Wooooowww se ve delicioso!! Y tu estás muy guapa!😍\"). This reads as a typical positive fan reaction: informal, emotive, and personal. Probability of being genuine is higher than fake because it includes a personalized compliment and natural variation (elongated 'Wooooowww') rather than templated keywords or links, but with only one comment it's impossible to exclude generic/bot comments entirely — many fake-engagement comments mimic praise. Since the sample is minimal, treat this as weak evidence of authentic audience engagement and Spanish-speaking followers. For advertising decision-making, obtain a larger sample of comments, check commenter account authenticity (age, posting history, follower-following ratios), look for repeated generic comments across posts, and compute overall engagement rate before committing. Given current single-comment evidence, influencer suitability is moderate (60/100) with low-to-moderate confidence." }

Text: Mmmmmm

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Low-effort positive/ambiguous reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief expression of approval/attraction or sensory pleasure; could be genuine quick reaction or generic filler to increase visible engagement" } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment: \"Mmmmmm\". This is a very low-information, low-effort comment — it signals some positive reaction but provides no context, audience signal, or conversational content. Such comments commonly come from real followers posting a quick positive reaction, but they are also frequently produced by bots or engagement farms because they are generic and easy to automate. Given the singular, ambiguous comment, the assessed fakeness leans toward possible inauthenticity (hence a moderate fakeness score) but confidence is low because one short comment is insufficient evidence.\n\nOverall, the comments provide weak support for advertising purchase: quality of engagement is poor, there is no conversational depth, and there is insufficient volume to assess audience relevance. Recommendation: obtain more data before making buying decisions — check total comment volume and distribution, frequency and variety of commenters, commenter profiles (age/location/activity), comment timestamps (sudden spikes), like-to-comment ratios, and run a follower authenticity audit. If many comments resemble this one or repeat across posts, treat engagement as likely inflated and downgrade ad spend priority." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (hearts)", "count": 1, "purpose": "surface-level positive reaction / endorsement. Low informational value — signals appreciation or approval but not product interest or intent to act. Could be genuine follower engagement, an engagement-pod reply, or a low-effort purchased comment." } ], "interpretation": "Assessment based on a single comment consisting of four heart emojis. Limitations: sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions. Emoji-only comments are common among genuine followers but are also common in bought engagement and engagement pods because they are low-effort and safe to reuse. Given only this data point, the comment quality is low (no questions, no product references, no personal testimony), which reduces its value for evaluating advertising effectiveness. Fakeness score is moderately elevated because the comment provides little unique signal and is a common format used by bots or organized engagement; however confidence is low because one emoji comment alone is inconclusive. Overall suitability for advertising is rated below average because meaningful, targeted, or conversational comments that indicate audience interest or intent are absent. Recommendation: before purchasing ads or partnerships, request a larger sample of recent comments, engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), comment author profiles (age, activity, follower counts), time distribution of comments, and examples of promotional-post comments. Perform basic checks for bot indicators (repetitive short comments, many commenters with no profile picture or zero posts, newly created accounts). If most comments across posts are similarly low-effort emojis, treat the audience as low-quality for conversion-focused campaigns; if longer, specific comments exist elsewhere, re-evaluate with that broader data." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reaction / low-effort engagement (likes/affection). Signals support but carries little informational value; common in both organic follower responses and automated/bot activity." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it contains three heart emojis (\"❤️❤️❤️\"). Emoji-only comments are high-frequency, low-signal interactions: they indicate positive sentiment but provide almost no context about genuine interest or purchase intent. Such short reactions are commonly posted by real followers as well as by automated accounts or engagement pods, so their presence alone is not strong evidence of authentic community engagement. Given the minimal sample, the fakeness score is set modestly (30) — leaning toward likely organic but with substantial uncertainty. For an advertising feasibility decision, this single comment is insufficient: you need a broader sample of comments across multiple posts, commenter account checks (age, follower ratios, activity), comment timestamps, and reply patterns to assess authenticity and audience quality reliably. Recommended next steps: collect 10–30 comments from recent posts, inspect commenter profiles for diversity and credibility, compute engagement rate and comment-to-like ratio, and look for repetitive/comment template patterns that suggest inauthentic activity." }

Text: best plan!!!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive/praise (short, low-effort)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval or encouragement; increases apparent engagement but provides little informative value about genuine interest or intent to convert. Such comments can be genuine follower praise or low-effort/bot engagement intended to inflate metrics." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment ('best plan!!!') is available. This is a low-effort, highly generic positive remark that gives minimal signal about real audience quality or purchase intent. Such comments are common both for genuine quick praise and for automated/inorganic engagement, so the assessment of fakeness is tentative (moderate probability). Given the limited sample, there is insufficient evidence to confidently recommend an advertising purchase based on comment quality alone. Recommended next steps before buying ads: examine more comments for diversity and specificity, audit commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), check timing patterns and like-to-comment ratios, and compare engagement rates against expected benchmarks for the influencer's follower size. Overall, treat this post's comment section as low-information and moderately risky for ad buys until further analysis is done." }

Text: Que deliiiii 🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive praise / low-effort emoji-rich", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enthusiasm/approval (likely about food or appealing content) and increases engagement metrics; no substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Que deliiiii 🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤\". This is a short, enthusiastic, emoji-heavy reaction that likely signals liking or craving. Such elongated phrasing and multiple emojis are common among genuine followers, but they are also the kind of low-effort text that engagement bots or coordinated pods can produce. With a single comment there is insufficient evidence to judge authenticity or whether the audience would convert for advertising. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), look for repeated phrasing/emojis across comments, analyze timing patterns, and compare comment diversity to follower size before deciding on ad spend. Current assessment: modestly positive engagement signal but high uncertainty; not enough to recommend purchase on its own." }

Text: La meilleure journée ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive personal reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enjoyment/affection for the moment (emotional support and simple engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"La meilleure journée ❤️\" — a short, positive French-language reaction with an emoji. Characteristics suggest a genuine follower reaction (natural phrasing, language-match, emoji use) rather than an obviously templated bot comment. However, this is only one data point and provides little information about audience quality, authenticity, or sustained engagement. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single positive comment is insufficient: you should examine volume and variety of comments, commenter account quality (real profiles vs. newly created or bot-like), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and overall follower engagement before purchasing. Given the limited sample, I rate fakeness low (15/100) but with moderate confidence; overall suitability for ads is modest (40/100) with moderate confidence." }

Text: Le meilleur mood🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic positive/compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive reaction to the post's mood/vibe (short praise + emoji), likely intended to signal approval/engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: \"Le meilleur mood🙌\" (French for \"The best mood\"), a short positive compliment with an emoji. This looks like organic, lightweight engagement rather than an obviously promotional or bot-like message, so estimated fakeness is low (around 20). Confidence in that judgment is limited because a single short comment is weak evidence; bot-generated comments can also be brief and positive. For advertising feasibility, this single comment provides minimal support — it shows at least one engaged viewer but gives no information about volume, commenter profiles, repeat engagement, like-to-follow ratios, or comment diversity. Based on this fragmentary evidence I rate overall suitability for ad purchase modestly low (35/100). Recommendation: obtain more data (total comments, likes, follower count, commenter account quality, comment timestamps and repetition patterns) before making a buying decision." }

Text: Le best plan ❤️🎄

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/generic praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/enthusiasm for the post (social proof). Short, generic compliment with emojis to signal positive sentiment." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment is available: \"Le best plan ❤️🎄\". It reads as a brief positive endorsement (mix of French/English), using emojis to convey warmth. This type of comment can be genuine (a follower reacting quickly) but is also commonly found in low-effort or purchased engagement because it is generic and non-specific to post content. With a single data point there is low confidence either way. For advertising feasibility this single comment provides weak evidence of authentic, engaged audience: it signals positive sentiment but not depth (no questions, no details, no conversation). Recommendation: perform a wider audit — sample many comments, check commenter profiles (real-looking accounts, posting history, follower counts), timing/velocity of comments, like-to-comment ratios, and look for patterns of repeated generic praise across posts, which would increase likelihood of inauthentic engagement. Based on the single comment, I rate the likelihood of fakeness moderate (40/100) and the post's suitability for ad spend low-to-moderate (35/100), but both assessments have limited confidence and should not be the sole basis for a buy decision." }

Text: Ok, je fais la recette ce week end 😂😍 ça donne trop envie !!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive engagement / intent-to-act", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise the content and express intent to try the recipe (social proof, enthusiastic feedback)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is natural, specific and context-rich: 'Ok, je fais la recette ce week end 😂😍 ça donne trop envie !!' expresses genuine enthusiasm and a concrete intention to try the recipe. Language, emoji use and the actionable statement reduce likelihood of being bot-generated or generic paid comment. However, a single comment is insufficient to judge overall audience authenticity or the influencer's suitability for advertising. For an advertising decision, examine comment volume and diversity across multiple posts, timing patterns, commenter account profiles (real followers vs. low-quality accounts), like-to-comment ratio, presence of meaningful conversation/replies, and follower growth history. Based on this one comment: low probability of being fake, but limited evidence—recommend further sampling and automated/manual vetting before purchase." }

Text: Coucou, comment ça se conserve si il en reste svp ??😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product-use question / genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Information-seeking about product storage; expresses positive interest (emoji) and potential purchase/consumption intent, and increases post engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a natural, specific question in French ('Coucou, comment ça se conserve si il en reste svp ??😍') asking how to store leftovers. It contains casual language, punctuation and an emoji, and is not promotional or generic — characteristics that point to an authentic user rather than a bot or fake account. Fakeness risk is low (score 10) with moderate-to-high confidence because the content is context-specific and interactional. However, one comment is very limited evidence for overall audience quality; while this shows real interest (a positive sign for advertising), you should examine a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, and overall engagement rate before making a purchase decision. Given the limited data, I rate the post comments' suitability for advertising moderately positive (60) but with only medium confidence." }

Text: Oh oui mode casanière et cuisine ici aussi 🙈 mais ça fait tellement du bien !!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "relational/relatable", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal identification with the post (homebody/cooking), positive reaction and emotional affirmation — signals genuine interest and community engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a natural, positive, and content-specific response: the user identifies with 'homebody mode' and cooking and says it feels good. Linguistic markers (specific detail, personal voice, emoji) point toward a real follower rather than a bot or paid commenter. Fakeness risk is low (estimated ~10/100), but confidence is limited because this is only one data point. For advertising-feasibility: this comment suggests the influencer attracts followers who relate to domestic/lifestyle content and respond with authentic engagement, which is favorable for campaigns in home, food, or wellness niches. However, a reliable purchase decision requires broader analysis: volume and variety of comments, comment-to-follower engagement rate, commenter profile quality (real accounts vs. bots), timing/distribution of comments, and presence of repetitive/generic comments. Based on this single comment alone I rate overall suitability moderately positive (60/100) with moderate uncertainty; recommend deeper comment-sample and profile-level checks before committing to ad spend." }

Text: Mais j’adore ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive praise with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval and provide visible engagement (likes/comments uplift)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Mais j’adore ❤️❤️❤️\" is a short, positive reaction in French with affectionate emojis. Characteristics suggest a genuine quick praise: natural language (contraction and accent), on-topic sentiment, and expressive emojis. However, short generic compliments are also commonly produced by engagement pods or low-effort bot accounts, so there is some ambiguity. Given only one comment to analyze, confidence is limited. Recommended next steps before using this influencer for advertising: examine a larger sample of comments for diversity and specificity, check commenter account authenticity (profile, activity, follower quality), compare comment-to-like ratios and timing patterns, and look for replies or conversational threads that indicate real audience interaction. Based on the available single comment, fakeness risk appears low-to-moderate (20/100) but the overall assessment of comment quality for ad decisions is inconclusive (50/100) due to insufficient sample size and context." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive reaction / show of support. Low informational value; often used to register engagement without substantive feedback. Can be genuine follower interaction or automated/spammy engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is an emoji (heart). Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous: they increase visible engagement but provide no evidence of meaningful, purchase-influencing audience interest. Without additional context (commenter account activity, follower counts, comment timing, repetition across posts, like-to-comment ratios, language/audience match), it's not possible to confidently classify this as authentic or fake. Given the low-information nature of the comment, assign a moderate fakeness risk (60/100) with low confidence (30/100). Overall suitability for advertising based on these comments alone is low (35/100) because there is insufficient, high-quality audience feedback; confidence in that assessment is low (30/100). Recommended next steps: obtain a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, analyze commenter profiles for real accounts vs. bots (profile picture, posting history, follower/following ratio), check repetition of identical comments, measure engagement rates (likes, saves, reach), and compare comment content quality and diversity to expected niche audience behavior." }

Text: Mais ouiii 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short enthusiastic reaction / supportive emoji comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses agreement/enthusiasm and social approval (positive emotional reaction), likely intended to show support or amusement rather than provide information or ask questions." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Mais ouiii 😂❤️\". This is a brief, informal, positive reaction in French (\"But yesss\") with laughing and heart emojis. As a single data point it indicates a friendly/engaged audience member expressing enthusiasm, but it contains no product-specific endorsement, no call-to-action, and no measurable intent to purchase. Fakeness risk is relatively low given the casual language and emojis, but confidence is limited because short emoji comments are common both from genuine followers and low-effort engagement accounts/bots. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient to conclude strong authentic influence: advertisers should request more data (full comment sample, commenter profile info, engagement rate relative to follower count, comment diversity, timing patterns). Recommended next checks: analyze a larger set of comments for signal vs. noise, inspect commenter profiles for real activity/history, check like:comment ratio and timing bursts, and look for substantive comments mentioning product, experience, or tagged friends. Based on the one comment alone, I give a cautious, below-average suitability score (45/100) and moderate-low confidence (40/100)." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Выражение положительной реакции/поддержки; очень низкая информационная ценность. Может быть от реального подписчика, от бота или от engagement-пода." } ], "interpretation": "Предоставлен один комментарий — три сердечка. Это слабый сигнал: показывает положительную реакцию, но не даёт информации о заинтересованности в продукте или намерении совершить покупку. Emoji-only комментарии часто встречаются и могут быть как от реальных пользователей, так и от автоматических/низкоэффективных аккаунтов; на основании единственного такого комментария сделать уверенный вывод о фальсификации невозможно. Оценка поддельности поставлена как умеренно подозрительная (45/100) с низкой уверенностью (35/100). В целом для решения о покупке рекламы этот пост даёт слабую поддержку (overall 40/100, уверенность 30/100). Рекомендации: собрать больше данных — соотношение комментариев и лайков к числу подписчиков, доля текстовых комментариев, профили комментаторов (реалистичность, активность), повторяющиеся шаблонные комментарии, временные паттерны активности, метрики вовлечения с конверсией (сохранения, переходы по ссылкам, клики в сторис). Только на основе расширенной выборки можно дать надёжный вердикт по пригодности для рекламной кампании." }

Text: On adore ton glow❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for the influencer's appearance/glow; increases visible positive engagement and social proof." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, 'On adore ton glow❤️', is a short, positive compliment with an emoji. It reads as a generic but slightly personal praise (uses 'ton' = 'your' and a heart), which supports genuine positive sentiment. However, the message is brief and could also appear in engagement pods or from casual/farm accounts—there's no clear personal detail or conversation thread to firmly establish authenticity. Given only one comment to analyze, the fakeness score is low-to-moderate (25) with moderate confidence (60). For advertising feasibility this single comment is neither a strong pro nor con: it indicates positive sentiment but provides no evidence of audience quality, reach, or meaningful engagement (clicks, conversions, repeat commenters). Overall suitability for ads is therefore neutral (50) with moderate confidence (50). Recommended next steps before purchase: examine volume and diversity of comments, like-to-follower ratio, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created/low-follow), engagement over time, and any signs of coordinated commenting (repeated phrasing across posts)." }

Text: La base le pop corn 🍿

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Casual/genuine reaction (short text + emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or light interest; simple engagement to signal viewership rather than provide feedback or conversion intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"La base le pop corn 🍿\" is a short, colloquial French remark with an emoji indicating amusement or that the commenter is watching the content like one watches a show. It reads as low-effort, likely genuine audience engagement rather than spam or a promotional/bot comment — no links, no repeated phrases, natural language. However, with only one comment sample the assessment is weak: there is insufficient data to judge overall comment authenticity, audience quality, or ad-readiness. For an advertising purchase decision you need more signals: comment volume and variety, repetition patterns (spam), follower-to-engagement ratios, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created), sentiment distribution, and conversion-relevant comments (questions, purchases, referral mentions). Based solely on this comment: slight positive signal for organic engagement but inadequate evidence to recommend buying ad space; further analysis required." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only / supportive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/affection and basic engagement (likes/support). Low informational value for assessing true audience interest; such comments are common from real followers but are also the easiest type of engagement to automate or buy." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment: three heart emojis (\"❤️❤️❤️\"). This is a generic, low-information supportive reaction. Strengths: indicates a positive reaction and presence of at least one engaged account. Weaknesses: emoji-only comments do not reveal intent to purchase, product-related interest, or audience quality; they are common both among genuine followers and bot/farm accounts, so they are not a strong signal of authentic, high-quality engagement. Given the tiny sample size (one comment) it's impossible to draw robust conclusions about the influencer's comment quality or audience authenticity. The moderate fakeness score (45) reflects that emoji comments are easy to fake but are also frequently genuine; confidence is low because of the very small sample. Overall suitability for advertising is low (score 30) based solely on these comments — advertisers should not rely on a single emoji comment as evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommendations: request more data (comments across multiple recent posts, total likes vs follower count, commenter account audits, comment diversity and conversational replies, timestamps), inspect commenter profiles for real accounts (profile completeness, posting history, follower/following ratios), and look for specific product-related comments or questions which better predict ad performance." }

Text: Cette peau incroyable 🤩

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for the influencer's skin (social proof, positive sentiment). Could be genuine praise from a follower or a generic short comment used by bots." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: \"Cette peau incroyable 🤩\". This is a short, positive compliment that functions as social proof and increases perceived appeal for beauty/skin-related advertising. Such brief praise is common from real followers but is also a common pattern for low-effort bot or paid comments, so there is moderate uncertainty about authenticity. Given the very small sample (one comment) confidence in any determination is low. For a reliable assessment of ad feasibility, analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower count, posting history), comment timing and repetition patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and presence of meaningful conversational replies. Based on the single comment, engagement signal is positive but insufficient to conclude genuine audience interest; proceed cautiously and request more data before committing to advertising spend." }

Text: Lovely and fresh

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic positive praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express brief approval/appreciation to the post; serves as lightweight engagement and social proof but provides little actionable feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Lovely and fresh\" is a short, positive, low-information compliment. It could be a genuine follower expressing approval or a low-effort/bot-like engagement; there is insufficient context to confidently classify it as authentic. For advertising purchase decisions this comment gives almost no signal about audience quality, intent to purchase, or influence on behavior. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent posts for volume and variety of comments, check commenter profiles for authenticity (profile age, activity, followers), look for repeated phrases across posts (bot pattern), compute engagement rate (comments+likes relative to followers), and request the influencer's media kit or campaign case studies. Based on this single comment, I would not rely on it as evidence of an effective advertising audience." }

Text: C’est exactement ça 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "agreement / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses agreement and amusement (relatability/humor), emotional endorsement using emojis." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"C’est exactement ça 😂❤️\". This reads as a concise, language-specific, context-dependent reaction that likely signals genuine engagement (the commenter agrees and finds the post funny or relatable). Features supporting genuineness: natural phrasing in French and use of two relevant emojis. Caveats: short, generic positive comments can also be produced by low-effort bot accounts or comment farms, so authenticity cannot be confirmed from a single instance. Given the extremely limited sample, the fakeness assessment is tentative (fakeness_score=20, confidence=60). The overall suitability of this influencer for advertising cannot be determined reliably from one comment; I assign a neutral middling overall_score=50 with low confidence (20). Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), check engagement rates (likes/comments per follower), timing/patterns of comments (bursts/repetition), and sentiment/diversity of responses before making an ad-purchase decision." }

Text: j’adore !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic praise / short positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval or support; increase visible engagement/positive sentiment without providing specific feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"j’adore !\" is a one-word enthusiastic reaction. It is a generic positive engagement signal but gives no substantive information about audience interest, product understanding, or intent to purchase. Such short, non-specific comments are common from genuine followers but are also commonly produced by low-effort bot accounts or purchased engagement. With only one short comment provided, the likelihood of inauthenticity is non-trivial (estimated fakeness 40/100) but confidence in that estimate is low due to extremely limited data. For advertising purchase decisions this comment alone is weak evidence of a valuable, engaged audience — overall suitability score 25/100. Recommend a deeper audit before buying advertising: examine volume and variety of comments across multiple posts, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns, likes-to-comments ratio, saved/shares metrics, and look for meaningful, product-specific comments and conversations that indicate real interest." }

Text: 🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (🔥)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enthusiasm/approval in a single character. Serves as lightweight engagement to boost visible activity; lacks substantive feedback. Can be genuine micro-engagement from a follower or a generic/inorganic comment used to inflate engagement metrics." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is a single fire emoji. That provides very little signal about audience quality or authenticity. Generic emoji comments are common from real followers but are also frequently used in inorganic engagement (bots or paid comment packs). With just this data point it's impossible to reliably classify as genuine or fake — hence a neutral fakeness score with low confidence.\n\nFor advertising feasibility: comment quality here is low (no substantive conversation, no questions, no indicators of purchase intent). Based solely on this comment, the post does not demonstrate persuasive or trustworthy audience interaction. Do not base a buy decision on this alone. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check comment diversity and timing patterns, compare likes-to-comments ratio, audit follower accounts (look for low-profile or repeated accounts), and examine story views/DMs and conversion-linked metrics. If multiple posts show predominantly single-emoji or repetitive generic comments, raise the fakeness score and lower the suitability for advertising." }

Text: Woooow cette peau 😍! Ce masque a l’air incroyable 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / Endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for the influencer's skin and to praise/endorse the featured product (social proof, positive sentiment)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: an enthusiastic, emoji-rich compliment in French (“Woooow cette peau 😍! Ce masque a l’air incroyable 🙌”). Characteristics: short, generic praise; positive sentiment; uses emojis; no question, no tagging, no link, no call-to-action. Likely purposes: to signal approval, provide social proof, and possibly to praise the influencer and the product. Assessment of fakeness: this single comment could be genuine (a typical fan reaction) but is also consistent with stock/purchased comments (generic praise with emojis). Because there is only one data point, the fakeness estimate is tentative. Recommendations: do not rely on this single comment to judge audience quality. For an advertising buy, request or examine a larger sample of comments across multiple posts and analyze commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history, profile photos), comment repetition across posts, timing patterns, engagement rate (likes/comments relative to followers), and presence of authentic conversations/questions. Based on the available evidence, the influencer shows at least some positive social signals, but there is insufficient information to confidently declare the audience genuine; proceed cautiously and gather more data before committing to ad spend." }

Text: @beauteactive Super belle 🫶 C'est super bon les pop-corn. En parlant de film de Noël, tu as pas joué dans Joséphine ange gardien "Un Noël recomposé " 🎬🎄

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 90, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise/positive sentiment to engage the influencer and signal support." }, { "type": "Casual/relatable remark", "count": 1, "purpose": "Share a relatable comment (popcorn) to create rapport and normal conversational tone." }, { "type": "Fan question / personal reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about a past role (references 'Joséphine ange gardien') to prompt a reply and demonstrate prior knowledge of the influencer's work." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears authentic and organic: it combines a personal compliment, a casual relatable remark (popcorn), and a specific question referencing a named TV/movie role. Indicators of genuineness include natural phrasing in French, a specific cultural reference (title of the episode/film), use of emojis in a conversational way, and no generic marketing language or spammy tags. Fakeness is rated low (10/100) with high confidence because the content is specific and personalized. Overall assessment for advertising feasibility is moderately positive (70/100) but with moderate confidence because this analysis is based on one comment only. Recommendation: review more comments on this post and the influencer's typical commenter accounts (follower quality, repetition of generic comments, like-to-comment ratios, timestamps and commenter profiles) before a final ad-buy decision." }

Text: J’adore 🔥👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive praise with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/appreciation and provide lightweight engagement (signal to algorithm); could be authentic fan enthusiasm but is a common, low-effort comment also used by bots/engagement pods." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"J’adore 🔥👏\" (French for \"I love it\" with emojis). This is a generic, positive reaction that increases visible engagement but carries low informational value about audience quality or purchase intent. Such brief praise is consistent with genuine follower encouragement but is also a high-frequency pattern used by fake/bot accounts and engagement groups. Given the single data point, the fakeness assessment is tentative (fakeness_score 35, confidence 30). For advertising-feasibility the signal is insufficient — slightly positive but weak (overall_score 40, confidence 25). Recommended next steps before purchasing: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition and specificity, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity, profile photos), check comment timing patterns, look for duplicated phrases across posts, measure overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), and evaluate presence of high-value interactions (questions, tagging, purchase-specific comments)." }

Text: Grave 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short compliment / emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/admiration; boosts apparent engagement but provides no substantive feedback or call-to-action." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Grave 😍' is a brief, positive reaction. It reads like a simple praise + emoji rather than a targeted promotional message or meaningful audience interaction. There are no signs of a call-to-action, tagging, link-sharing, or product-related discussion. Its short, generic form slightly raises the possibility of bot-like or copy-paste replies, but given the emoji and lack of repeating patterns (only one comment provided) it is more likely genuine—hence a low fakeness score but only moderate confidence. For advertising feasibility this single positive but shallow comment is insufficient evidence of a highly engaged or authentic community. Recommend broader analysis (volume and variety of comments, recurring commenters, commenter profile checks, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios and comparison to follower count) before making a buy/no-buy decision." }

Text: Larbin

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative/abusive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express hostility/insult the poster — likely a troll, critic, or disgruntled follower aiming to provoke or signal disapproval." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Larbin' (Russian for 'lackey'/'toady') is a short, clearly negative/abusive remark. It looks organic (not a generic praise-sounding bot comment) so fakeness is unlikely. However, one hostile comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or engagement authenticity. For advertising decisions you need broader data: volume and sentiment distribution of comments, ratio of comments to likes/followers, presence of repetitive/generic comments (sign of bots), audience demographics and past sponsored post performance. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments and engagement metrics before deciding; a lone negative comment is not by itself disqualifying but patterns of abuse or coordinated negativity would be a risk." }

Text: ahah j’adore 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction / praise (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement/liking; social approval and engagement but provides little information about purchase intent or audience quality." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single short comment: \"ahah j’adore 😂\". This is a brief, positive, emoji-rich reaction typical of genuine viewers showing amusement or enjoyment. Its brevity and generic wording lower its informational value for assessing audience quality or conversion potential. Fakeness is unlikely (fakeness_score 15) because the phrasing and emoji usage match normal organic responses; however, the confidence is not maximal since one short comment is not strong evidence either way. For advertising decisions this single comment is weak signal — it indicates likeability but not engagement depth, intent to purchase, or audience relevance. Recommend collecting more data points before buying ads: total number of comments, comment diversity, likes per comment, engagement rate relative to follower count, commenter account checks (real profiles, prior activity), and audience demographics. If many comments are similarly short/generic, that could signal low-quality engagement or inorganic boosting; if instead comments are varied and specific, that supports higher ad suitability." }

Text: @youcefkanouni moi à chaque sortie 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "relatable reaction / friend tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express relatability to the post and tag another user to share the content or joke" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('@youcefkanouni moi à chaque sortie 😂😂') is a short, colloquial French reaction that includes laughter emojis and a user tag. Features (personal phrasing, emoji use, tagging a friend) point toward organic engagement rather than a generic bot or paid promotional comment. However, this is only one comment — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall comment quality or audience authenticity. For advertising feasibility, this specific comment is a positive signal (real engagement, relatability), but you should analyze a larger set of comments, commenter account profiles, comment timing/volume, and like rates before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter and simple engagement; low informational or commercial intent. Signals attention but not purchase interest; can be left by genuine followers or by low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided (five laughing emojis). Emoji‑only comments are high-engagement superficially but carry little signal about audience quality or purchase intent. They are ambiguous: many real followers use emoji reactions, while generic/bot accounts often post emojis too. Given the minimal sample, I estimate a moderate probability of being fake (35%) with limited confidence (40%). For advertising feasibility this single comment is weak evidence — neutral score (50) with low confidence (30). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), look for repetitive/comment timing patterns, and evaluate comment-to-like ratio and comment diversity before making a buy decision." }

Text: J’espère que t’as au moins 70% de la paie mdr

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Informal/conversational follower comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Teasing/expressing surprise about payment amount; casual engagement showing relatable reaction to post content (likely monetary topic)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment — \"J’espère que t’as au moins 70% de la paie mdr\" — reads as a natural, informal reaction in French. It references pay and uses colloquial abbreviation (mdr), suggesting a real follower making a joking/concerned remark rather than a generic promotional or bot-like message. Fakeness is assessed low (10) but with modest confidence because the sample size is one comment; isolated comments are hard to generalize. For advertising feasibility: this single genuine-seeming comment indicates some audience engagement and topical interest (salary/money), but it is insufficient to conclude broader authentic engagement or audience fit. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, comment authors (profiles, follower counts, activity), comment timestamps, repetition patterns, and comment likes to assess true engagement and detect coordinated or fake activity before making an advertising decision." }

Text: Exploitage !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "ambiguous single-word/comment (non-standard token)", "count": 1, "purpose": "engagement (likely generic praise/acknowledgement) OR spam/bot signal; could also be off-topic or sarcastic. Purpose unclear from single token." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Exploitage !'. That single-token comment is ambiguous — it could be a short positive exclamation, a misspelling/foreign word, or a bot/spam tag. With one short comment there is very low signal to reliably judge authenticity or audience quality. The moderately high fakeness score reflects that single-word comments are common in inorganic engagement, but confidence is low because short natural comments also occur. For influencer-ad feasibility: there is insufficient evidence to recommend buying based on this sample alone. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (100+), inspect commenter profiles for real accounts (history, follower counts, avatars, posting behavior), check comment timing patterns and repetition across posts, compare like:comment ratios and growth patterns, and run automated bot-detection tools. If many comments resemble this one or come from accounts with bot-like characteristics, reduce the influencer score; if comments are varied and from real users, increase confidence and score." }

Text: C’est ou ?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Location inquiry / Information-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking where the photo/video was taken — genuine engagement from a viewer seeking context or travel information." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment ('C’est ou ?' — 'Where is this?') is provided. This is a direct, content-related question indicating likely genuine interest rather than a generic/patterned or promotional reply. There are no signs of common fake-comment patterns (copy-paste praise, emojis-only, giveaway spam, unrelated links, repeated text). Given the extremely small sample size, confidence is limited: the low fakeness score reflects that this single comment appears authentic, but it is insufficient to judge the broader audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising decisions, this sample suggests some real viewer curiosity but provides no information about comment volume, diversity, commenter profiles, reply behavior, or overall engagement rate. Recommended next steps: gather a larger comment sample, check commenter profiles for real accounts (followers, posting history), measure comment-to-follower and like-to-follower ratios, look for repeated phrasing or timing bursts, and examine replies from the influencer — these will better determine audience authenticity and ad feasibility." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "выражение эмоции (смех/одобрение), минимальное вовлечение, низкая информационная ценность" } ], "interpretation": "Предоставленный комментарий — всего один набор смайликов «😂😂😂». Это типичный низкоинформативный реактивный комментарий: подтверждает, что кто‑то видел пост и отреагировал эмоционально, но не даёт признаков содержательной дискуссии или целевой заинтересованности. Один такой комментарий сам по себе не указывает ни на явное мошенничество, ни на стопроцентную подлинность аудитории — он может быть как искренним, так и автоматизированным/массовым. Для оценки пригодности блогера для рекламы этот фрагмент данных недостаточен. Рекомендации: запросить полный набор комментариев (количество, разнообразие текста, временные метки), проверить профили комментаторов (реальные аватары, истории активности), соотношение лайков к комментариям, частоту повторяющихся фраз/эмодзи и соотношение вовлечённости к числу подписчиков. На текущих данных — слабый положительный сигнал вовлечённости, но слишком мало оснований для уверенного решения о покупке рекламы." }

Text: On en parle de la troisième personne qui filme la vidéo

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "observer / question", "count": 1, "purpose": "To point out or ask about a third person filming the video (engagement and observational comment)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided ('On en parle de la troisième personne qui filme la vidéo') reads as a genuine, conversational observation/question from a viewer. It shows low commercial intent and appears organic rather than promotional or spammy. With only one comment, there is insufficient data to assess overall comment authenticity or audience quality reliably. For advertising feasibility, this single genuine interaction is a small positive signal (audience noticing production details), but it does not demonstrate scaled engagement, purchase intent, or audience demographics. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition patterns, timing, commenter account quality (age, follower counts, posting history), proportion of promotional/repetitive comments, and like-to-comment ratios before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: Maintenant je veux voir la vidéo moi 😂👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Curiosity/Anticipation (engagement)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses interest in seeing the video and adds positive reaction (emojis). Functions as genuine engagement and social proof." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is in natural French with casual phrasing and emojis: \"Maintenant je veux voir la vidéo moi 😂👏\" (Now I want to see the video). This reads as a genuine, organic reaction expressing curiosity and eagerness rather than a promotional or templated reply. There are no typical bot signs (repeated phrases, irrelevant links, tags, or overly generic praise). However, the sample is extremely small (one comment only), so the confidence and ability to generalize across the post's entire comment set is limited. For ad-buy decisions, this single comment is a small positive signal of engaged audience interest but insufficient evidence of broad, authentic engagement. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles (age, follower count, activity) and comment timing patterns, measure comment diversity and likes on comments, and compare overall engagement rate versus follower count before finalizing an advertising purchase." }

Text: Je pense surtout à la personne qui filme la deuxième personne qui filme l’autre influenceuse

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "observational / meta-comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Call attention to staging or layers of production (pointing out who is filming whom); signals audience awareness of performative setup." }, { "type": "humor / sarcasm", "count": 1, "purpose": "Lightly mocking or amused remark about the scene; engages without promoting the post or product." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a context-aware, mildly sarcastic observation about the filming setup: 'I'm thinking about the person filming the second person who is filming the other influencer.' This reads as organic (not a generic praise or emoji spam) and likely authored by a real account rather than a bot or paid commenter. Its purpose is to highlight how staged or performative the content appears, which can signal audience skepticism about authenticity. For advertising decisions, this kind of engagement suggests two things: (1) the influencer produces highly staged content visible to viewers, which may reduce perceived authenticity for products that rely on genuine recommendations; (2) the audience notices and comments on production, indicating engaged viewers but potentially critical ones. Confidence in the fakeness assessment is moderate-high because the language is specific and situational; confidence in the overall assessment is lower because this analysis is based on a single comment. Recommendation: gather a larger sample of comments, reply patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and follower quality before finalizing an ad buy. Additional checks: comment diversity (compliments, questions, complaints), timing patterns, and presence of repetitive/generic comments that would raise the fakeness score." }

Text: 💩💩💩

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express dislike/criticism, trolling or quick negative feedback" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (💩💩💩) is an unequivocal negative reaction expressed via emoji. Emoji-only negative comments are common from real users, casual trolls, or occasional spambots; with only one instance there is insufficient evidence of coordinated fake engagement. Fakeness is assessed as low-to-moderate (20/100) but confidence is limited because the sample size is a single comment. For advertising feasibility: this single negative emoji is a weak signal and should not alone disqualify the influencer, but it flags the need for further checks. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments for sentiment distribution, check like-to-comment ratios, assess follower authenticity (growth spikes, follower quality), and look for patterns of repeated short/emoji comments which could indicate bot activity. Based on available data the post's comment profile is not compelling but not decisively fake or damaging; overall suitability for ad placement is cautiously below average (40/100) with low confidence." }

Text: Je n'aime pas ce côté du : << m'as-tu vu ? >>

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical / negative opinion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express personal dislike and criticize perceived attention-seeking behaviour ('m'as-tu vu ?')" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a concise, specific negative reaction in French that calls out an attention-seeking tone. Linguistic cues (natural phrasing, punctuation, language specificity) suggest it is likely authentic rather than bot/spam. There are no signs of generic praise, emoji-only replies, repeated marketing phrases, or obvious bot patterns in this one sample. Because there is only one comment provided, this sample is too small to draw robust conclusions about the audience quality or overall authenticity of the influencer's comment stream. For ad-purchase feasibility: a lone critical comment is not decisive — brands should consider overall sentiment mix, engagement rates, commenter diversity, follower authenticity, and alignment of audience values with the product. Recommended next steps: retrieve a larger random sample (e.g., 50–200 recent comments), total comments-to-followers and likes-to-followers ratios, timing patterns, and a follower audit for fake/bot accounts before making an advertising decision." }

Text: Trop drôle

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive reaction / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/approval and provide lightweight social proof (engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Trop drôle' is a brief positive reaction (French: 'so funny'). It likely reflects genuine amusement from a viewer but carries very low informational value alone. Short one‑phrase comments are common from real followers and from low-effort bot accounts alike; without additional signals (commenter profile, timing, repetition across posts, comment likes, language distribution, and overall engagement rate) it's not possible to confidently classify this as organic or fake. For advertising-feasibility: the comment is a weak positive signal but insufficient to judge audience quality or engagement authenticity. Recommended next steps: provide more comments (sample across multiple posts), commenter metadata, like counts, follower counts, and distribution of comment types to produce a reliable assessment." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; low-effort engagement that signals emotion but provides no substantive feedback. Could be genuine fan reaction or generic/bot-like engagement used to inflate numbers." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a repeated laughing-emoji string (😂😂😂😂😂😂). Emoji-only comments are low-information: they indicate an emotional reaction but not intent, interest in a product, or thoughtful engagement. Such comments are common both from genuine followers making a quick reaction and from low-effort bot/spam accounts seeking to inflate visible engagement. With only one comment available, authenticity is ambiguous—hence a moderate fakeness score. For advertising purchase decisions this comment provides very weak social proof and little evidence of an engaged, conversion-ready audience. Recommend analyzing more data before buying ads: distribution of comment types across multiple posts, ratio of substantive comments to emoji-only comments, unique commenter count, follower quality (active real accounts vs. suspicious accounts), engagement rate relative to follower count, timestamps and repetitiveness of similar comments, and demographic alignment with the target audience. If many comments across posts are similar emoji-only or come from accounts with few followers/no profile pictures, treat engagement as likely inflated and reduce confidence in influencer effectiveness." }

Text: 😂😂😂trop bien

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji + short praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/positive reaction and social approval; low-effort engagement (surface-level endorsement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided (\"😂😂😂trop bien\") is a brief, positive, low-effort reaction consisting of emojis and a short French phrase meaning \"so good\". This pattern is common among genuine followers who react quickly and casually, but it is also commonly produced by low-quality accounts or automated scripts that post generic praise. With only one short comment and no surrounding context (no user metadata, timestamps, multiple comments, likes on the comment, or thread activity), authenticity cannot be confidently established. The fakeness score is therefore modest (30/100) reflecting that the comment could be genuine but shares characteristics with generic/bot comments; confidence is low-medium because of the very limited sample. For advertising feasibility: this single comment provides minimal positive signal and insufficient evidence of engaged, meaningful audience interaction. I recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower/following ratio, content), comment timestamps, distribution of comment types, and overall engagement metrics (likes, saves, view counts) before deciding. Based on this one comment alone, the post’s comment-level endorsement is weak (overall score 25/100) and the confidence in that assessment is low (30/100)." }

Text: Waaaaa je sais pas pourquoi mais je l’ai regardé au moins 20x 😅 la première j’ai essayé de la passer au microscope 😂 mais j’arrive pas à me focus dessus 😆

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic engagement / viewer reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enjoyment/amusement, indicate repeated views, and engage with the creator/audience (non-promotional, conversational)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (French) reads as a natural, detailed reaction: uses emojis, specific behavior ('regardé au moins 20x', 'passer au microscope', 'j’arrive pas à me focus') and playful language, which are strong indicators of a genuine human response rather than bot/generic spam. There are no giveaway signs of coordinated or fake commenting (no repetitive short praise, no promotional links, no tags). Based on this one comment the fakeness risk is low (score ~10). \n\nHowever, this is a very small sample (one comment). For reliable influencer-ad feasibility assessment you need a larger set of comments, commenter profile checks (age, follower counts, activity patterns), engagement rate vs follower count, comment diversity, and timing patterns. With the available evidence, the post appears to generate authentic viewer interest and is moderately suitable for advertising consideration (overall score ~65), but confidence is limited by sample size." }

Text: Non mais je suis fan fan fan 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic praise / fan", "count": 1, "purpose": "express admiration and positive reaction; provides social proof and increases visible engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"Non mais je suis fan fan fan 😍\" is a short, enthusiastic fan-type remark. Features that suggest it is genuine: natural phrasing (repetition for emphasis), an emoji consistent with a positive reaction, and language matching the post (French). Features that reduce confidence: very generic content (no post-specific detail), short length, and a common template used by both real followers and bots/engagement farms. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient evidence to assess overall comment authenticity or community quality. Recommendation: before using this influencer for advertising, review a larger sample of comments for diversity (varied language and specificity), check commenter account quality (real profiles vs. throwaway/bot accounts), timing patterns (many similar comments in short intervals), and compare engagement rate to follower count. Based on this single comment, the probability it is fake is low-to-moderate (fakeness_score 25) but confidence is limited (45). Overall suitability for ads is inconclusive/neutral (overall_score 50) with low confidence (40) until deeper comment and audience audit is done." }

Text: 😂😂 Excellent

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction (emoji + one-word praise)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/positive reinforcement and increase visible engagement; low-effort interaction that can be left by either real followers or automated/paid engagement services." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment '😂😂 Excellent' is a very short, generic positive reaction. Such comments are common from genuine followers but are also a common pattern used by bots or engagement farms because they are low-effort and broadly applicable. With only one comment available, there is insufficient evidence to judge audience authenticity reliably. Indicators of potential inauthenticity: lack of specificity (no mention of post details), use of multiple emojis plus a generic adjective, and absence of conversation or follow-up. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts, posting history), look for repeated or identical comments across posts, engagement-to-follower ratios, and timing patterns before deciding on advertising spend. Given the limited data, I rate the comments for this post as leaning toward possibly inauthentic (fakeness 60) but with low confidence; overall suitability for advertising based on comments alone is low (30) and should not be relied on without broader account-level analysis." }

Text: Thanks for laugh sister 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive/emoji comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction and signal lightweight engagement (thank-you + emojis). Likely intended as a quick appreciation or friendly response." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment “Thanks for laugh sister 😂😂” is a short, positive, emoji-rich reply. Features that point toward being genuine: the colloquial phrasing and the use of a personal term (“sister”) which suggests a real follower or friend rather than a templated bot line. Features that raise caution: brevity, generic positivity and emoji-only emphasis — patterns often seen in low-effort engagement or automated accounts. Given only one comment to analyze, this is a very small sample and provides weak evidence about the overall audience authenticity or ad-readiness. For an advertising decision you should not rely on this single comment. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter’s profile (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), review a larger sample of recent comments for repetition or templates, compare comment volume to likes/views, check timestamps for bursts, and evaluate follower quality across multiple posts. Based on the single comment, I rate the likelihood of it being fake low (20/100) but with moderate uncertainty; the overall usefulness of the post’s comments for ad-feasibility is limited (35/100) due to insufficient data." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter (engagement reaction). Low informational value and low direct purchase intent; a lightweight signal of attention rather than endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "Analysis based on a single comment: '😂😂😂' is a low-effort emoji reaction that signals amusement but provides no substantive feedback or endorsement. Such comments are common and can be genuine (followers reacting casually) or produced by low-effort engagement farms/bots; given only one emoji and no additional context, the probability of fakeness is moderate-to-low (estimated here ~25%). For advertising-feasibility this single comment is weak evidence of meaningful audience interest or purchase intent — it does show attention but not intent or influence. Recommendation: do not base an advertising decision on this lone comment. Instead, review a larger sample of comments for diversity (long-form praise/critique, questions, tagging of friends), commenter profile quality (real-looking accounts with history), engagement ratios (likes vs comments, comments per follower), timing patterns, and presence of repetitive short comments/emojis which indicate inorganic engagement. If the larger comment set contains mostly similar emoji reactions with many low-quality accounts, reduce trust in this influencer; if there are many substantive, varied, and authentic comments, the influencer becomes more suitable for ad spend." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment or approval; increases visible engagement without substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a heart emoji. This is a very low-information signal — it indicates positive sentiment but no detail about intent, product interest, or audience demographics. Heart-only comments are common from real followers as well as automated/bot accounts, so on its own this comment is not a reliable indicator of authentic, high-quality engagement. Given the sample size (n=1), the assessment has low confidence. For advertising purchase decisions, you should request more data: full comment set, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratio, diversity of comments, and engagement rate across recent posts. Based on the single emoji comment, I would not consider this sufficient evidence of strong, authentic audience engagement for ad targeting; further investigation is required." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 0, "fakeness_confidence": 0, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 0, "comment_types": [], "interpretation": "Анализ не выполнен — вы не прикрепили текст комментариев. Пожалуйста, вставьте все комментарии (или снимок/экспорт) для этой публикации. После получения комментариев я классифицирую типы и цели, оценю уровень фейковости (0–100) с уверенностью и дам итоговую рекомендацию по пригодности для рекламы." }

Text: The first one though 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short reaction/commentary", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement and indicate a preference (likely referencing the first item in a carousel or list); informal engagement to show attention" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, \"The first one though 😂\", is a short, natural-seeming reaction and preference indicator. It reads like an authentic human response (emoji, conversational phrasing) rather than a generic promotional or copy-pasted bot message. However, with only one comment provided there is very limited signal: you cannot assess broader community authenticity, engagement quality, or audience demographics from this alone. For advertising feasibility this single comment is neutral-to-slightly-positive evidence that at least some followers react organically, but overall engagement volume appears low based on the sample. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of recent posts (comment diversity, like:comment ratios, repetition of phrases, timing patterns, and follower quality) before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: 👣😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses affection/approval/interest; functions as lightweight engagement. Such comments can be genuine fan reactions or generic engagement left by bots/engagement farms to inflate metrics." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment — two emojis (👣😍) — is available. Emoji-only replies are ambiguous: they can indicate genuine positive reaction from a follower, but are also commonly used by low-effort bot accounts or engagement services. With a single data point there is very weak evidence either way. The moderately high fakeness score reflects that emoji-only comments are a common signal of low-effort or inorganic engagement, but the low confidence score reflects the extremely limited sample and lack of contextual data (commenter account age, follower count, comment frequency, likes on comment, other comments, reply threads, time distribution, or repeated patterns across posts). For advertising-feasibility: current comment sample does not provide reliable proof of an engaged, authentic audience — I rate it low (30). Recommendation: gather a larger sample (at least 50–200 recent comments), inspect commenter profiles for realism (profile picture, bio, post history, follower/following ratios), look at like-to-comment ratios across posts, check for repeated or templated comments, and examine story views and saves. With that additional data a substantially more confident assessment can be given." }

Text: Quelle est la réf du jean svp ?:)

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Follower asking for product reference/details (purchase intent)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a direct, product-focused question in French asking for the jeans reference. This reads as a genuine follower with purchasing interest rather than a bot/generic compliment or promotional spam. Because the sample is only one comment, conclusions about overall comment authenticity and audience quality are limited. Low fakeness score reflects that the comment content is specific and natural; however, the low volume of comments implies limited observable engagement. For advertising feasibility: this indicates some real product interest but is insufficient evidence on its own to judge audience quality or conversion potential. Recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, likes-to-followers ratio, recurrence of similar product inquiries, and whether the influencer responds (and how) to these questions before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: First one kinda ate tho🔥😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive organic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Compliment/praise — expresses approval of the first item (slang: 'ate') and uses emojis to strengthen positive reaction and amusement." } ], "interpretation": "Single short comment reads as casual, conversational praise from a likely real user. Language ('kinda ate tho') and emoji use (🔥😂) are typical of organic fan engagement rather than templated bot copy. However, this is only one comment — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience quality. For advertising decisions, this single positive reaction is mildly encouraging but insufficient alone. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments (volume, diversity, timing), inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (activity, follower counts, history), check overall engagement rate vs follower count, and look for patterns of repetitive phrasing or sudden spikes that indicate purchased comments. Based on this single comment, fake-likelihood is low but confidence is moderate-to-low; overall ad-feasibility is cautiously positive but requires more data before committing." }

Text: 🦶🏼👅

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "sexual/explicit emoji (low-effort)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Flirtation/sexual suggestion or attention-seeking; minimal engagement (emoji reaction) rather than substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a two-emoji sequence (foot + tongue) that reads as a suggestive/sexual reaction. This is low-effort engagement: it probably indicates an individual follower making a flirtatious or attention-seeking remark, but it could also be produced by low-quality bot/comment farms because emoji-only comments are commonly used by automated accounts. Given the single-sample input, confidence is low. For advertising feasibility: suggestive comments can pose brand-safety concerns for some advertisers (especially family-friendly, luxury, or conservative brands). With this single comment the signal is weak — not decisive for or against buying ads, but it raises a caution flag. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments (dozens to hundreds), check for repeated emoji patterns or repeated phrasing across commenters, inspect commenter account quality (age, followers, posting history), and measure overall engagement rate and sentiment before finalizing an ad buy." }

Text: Hahaha the first one 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short reaction / conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and positive engagement (reaction to content, likely referring to the first slide/entry); provides light social proof and signals a moment of resonance with the audience." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Hahaha the first one 😂\". This reads as a spontaneous, informal reaction expressing amusement and is likely genuine (low fakeness score). However, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall comment quality or audience authenticity. From an advertising-feasibility perspective the signal is weak: while sentiment is positive, there is very low volume and no substantive conversation, no questions, no purchase intent, and no evidence of targeted audience interest. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, compute engagement rate (comments+likes relative to followers), inspect comment diversity and timing patterns, and scan for repeated phrasing or bot-like accounts before making a buying decision. Current overall suitability for advertising is low–moderate (score ~30) due to insufficient engagement data, with moderate confidence in this assessment given the tiny sample." }

Text: I watched this so many times

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive engagement / repeat-viewer", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enjoyment and indicate repeated viewing; serves as social proof and signals content appeal" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"I watched this so many times.\" The message is concise and reads as a plausible organic reaction indicating enjoyment and repeat consumption. This tends to be genuine engagement rather than promotional or purely generic spam, but with a single data point it is difficult to rule out a low-effort bot or copy-paste comment. For influencer ad-buy decisions this single comment is mildly positive evidence of content appeal, but insufficient to judge audience quality or authenticity. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments (diversity, depth, emoji use), inspect commenter profiles for real follower counts and activity, check like-to-comment ratios and view counts, and look for repetitive/generic comment patterns across multiple posts. Based on available information, the post shows small genuine-seeming engagement but more data is needed to raise confidence." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter and register low-effort engagement; signals attention but gives no substantive endorsement or insight." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short emoji comment (five laughing-face emojis) is available. Emoji-only comments are common and typically indicate a quick, likely genuine emotional reaction or a lightweight engagement intended to acknowledge the post. They are low-information: they do not confirm real audience interest in products or purchasing intent and can be produced both by real users and by low-effort bot accounts. Given the extremely limited sample (one comment), the assessment of fakeness and commercial value is very uncertain. Recommendations: analyze a larger sample of comments (content variety, repetition of identical emojis/text), commenter account quality (profile age, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns (many comments in short bursts), and like-to-comment ratios. Without that, the post’s comments provide weak support for advertising spend." }

Text: @estel_lau jamais nous car on préfère rester avec nos koala 🐨 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "tag/reply", "count": 1, "purpose": "Directly addresses or tags another user to continue a private or in-thread conversation." }, { "type": "friendly/personal", "count": 1, "purpose": "Personal reaction or preference indicating a real person (social bonding with the poster or other commenters)." }, { "type": "humor/emoticon", "count": 1, "purpose": "Light-hearted joking using emoji to convey tone and reduce ambiguity." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears organic and conversational: it tags a friend, expresses a humorous personal preference, and uses emoji to signal tone. These features are typical of genuine follower interaction rather than generic bot spam or paid promotional comments. However, assessment is limited by sample size (one comment). For advertising-feasibility decisions you should analyze a larger, recent set of comments, look for patterns (repeats, generic compliments, link spam), check like-to-comment ratios, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created), and overall audience demographics before concluding. Based on this lone comment, authenticity seems likely (low fakeness), but confidence and the overall recommendation for ad purchase remain moderate due to insufficient data." }

Text: @ma_rouxxxx

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "tag_only", "count": 1, "purpose": "A single user handle/tag (@ma_rouxxxx) posted in the comments to draw that person's attention or share the post. This is a low-effort engagement type often used by real users to notify friends but also frequently produced by bots/engagement pods; it provides little signal about genuine interest in content." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is present and it is a tag-only comment. Tag-only comments are low-information: they do not express sentiment about the content or product and are common both in organic friend-sharing and in inorganic engagement strategies. Given this limited sample, the comments provide weak evidence of a real, engaged audience. I assess a moderate-to-high likelihood the comment behavior is low-quality/inorganic (fakeness score 65) but with low confidence because of the single data point. For advertising decisions, this single tag comment reduces confidence in audience authenticity and is insufficient to support an ad buy. Recommended next steps: examine a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts (ideally 50+ comments), check diversity and recurrence of commenter accounts, compare likes-to-comments ratio, review comment content (sentiment and specificity), check commenter account age/follower ratios for bot signals, inspect story interactions and saves/shares, and run a follower/audience audit. With those checks you can raise confidence and provide a more reliable overall suitability score." }

Text: Le pire c’est de dire (merci de garder les enfants) alors que c’est juste normal 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic/sarcastic user comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "express opinion and mild critique with humor (engagement showing a human reaction to post content)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears genuine: it's written in natural French, refers to a specific phrase in the post (\"merci de garder les enfants\"), contains a contextual opinion and a laughing emoji, and doesn't read as generic praise or a call-to-action. These are signals of authentic engagement, so fakeness is low (estimated ~10). However this analysis is based on one comment only — sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall audience authenticity or the influencer's suitability for advertising. For ad-buy decisions, obtain more data: number of comments, likes relative to follower count, comment diversity, timing patterns, and examples of other posts. If the majority of comments are similar (short, contextual, varied language, specific references), confidence in authenticity would rise and the overall score for ad feasibility would increase. Given current limited data, overall assessment is cautious: some genuine engagement but insufficient evidence to strongly recommend purchase." }

Text: La vrai vie 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction / praise (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and signal approval of the post’s content or perceived authenticity; lightweight engagement that increases visible social proof." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"La vrai vie 😍\" is a brief, positive reaction that praises the content and signals appreciation for the poster’s lifestyle/authenticity. Its language and emoji usage are consistent with normal follower responses and make it unlikely to be a clearly automated or malicious comment — hence a low fakeness score (10). However, with only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or community quality. For advertising feasibility this single positive comment is a small positive signal but insufficient evidence of sustained, genuine engagement. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter accounts (age, activity, profile completeness), measure like-to-comment ratio and comment diversity, inspect timing/velocity of comments and look for repeated phrasing or accounts to detect coordinated or fake activity." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement with no substantive feedback or intent to convert." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment provided: three laughing-face emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only responses are common, low-effort engagement that indicate a viewer found the post amusing but provide no detail about audience sentiment, purchase intent, or relevance to advertised products. Such comments can be genuine casual reactions or produced by low-effort/bot accounts; with a single example the assessment is highly uncertain. Given the lack of substantive comments, variety, or contextual signals (no textual praise, questions, or product-related discussion), this comment set is insufficient to support confident advertising purchase decisions. Recommendation: gather more data (total comments, comment diversity, likes, follower count, commenter account quality, comment timing patterns) before proceeding. Currently, treat influencer as low-priority for ad spend based on comments alone." }

Text: @clem_mamancomblee ptdr trop nous ça !! 😆🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "friend-tag + relatable reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tag a friend and express amusement/relatability (social engagement, signaling 'this is us'), likely to draw the tagged person's attention and increase visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment (@clem_mamancomblee ptdr trop nous ça !! 😆🤣) appears authentic: it uses informal, idiomatic French (ptdr = 'pété de rire'), tags a specific account, and includes emoji-driven emotional response — all typical of real user-to-user interaction. These are positive signals for organic engagement rather than generic promotional comments. However, one comment is a very small sample: the assessment has limited confidence. For influencer ad-buy decisions you should verify broader indicators (comment diversity and volume, repetition of similar short comments, commenter account histories and follower counts, engagement rate relative to audience size, timing patterns, and replies). If most comments match this pattern (personal tags, conversational language, varied phrasing), that supports genuine community engagement and increases suitability for advertising. If instead the comments are mostly generic one-word praise or repeated phrases from low-quality accounts, that would lower suitability. Given the available data, I rate the comment feed as probably genuine and moderately supportive of ad feasibility, but recommend deeper analysis before final purchase." }

Text: @teiiha t’es dispo quand ? 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal mention / tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct social interaction — tagging a friend and asking about availability (informal/relational engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "The comment '@teiiha t’es dispo quand ? 😂' is in French, tags another user and asks 'when are you available?' with a laughing emoji. This is a casual, conversational comment likely from a friend or follower rather than a promotional or bot-generated message. It shows interpersonal engagement (audience knows or interacts with each other), not product interest or marketing language. There are no spam/bot signals (no repeated text, links, generic compliments, or emoji-only patterns). Given only a single comment, this indicates some authentic community interaction, which is a positive signal for influencer authenticity, but it provides little information about interest in promoted products or campaigns. For advertising feasibility, more comments, diversity of comment types, engagement rates (likes, saves), and follower quality should be reviewed to make a confident buy decision." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple positive reaction/support (like/love). Low information value for intent or purchase interest." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a heart emoji (\"❤️\"). Emoji-only comments commonly indicate lightweight positive engagement but provide almost no signal about genuine interest, purchasing intent, or audience quality. They are also the type most often produced by casual followers, engagement pods, or low-effort bot accounts, so authenticity is ambiguous. Given only this one short comment, there is insufficient evidence to assess audience quality or ad performance. Recommendation: collect more data before making an advertising decision — analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check commenter account profiles (activity, follower counts, bio realism), look for repeated/similar comments across posts, examine timing patterns, and compute engagement rate (likes + comments relative to follower count). If many comments are similarly short/emoji-only or come from accounts with low/no activity, treat audience as likely low-quality and be cautious about ad spend." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji praise (applause)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show approval/encouragement; low informational content and often used as quick engagement (can be genuine follower or low-effort/bot comment)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two clapping emojis. This is a positive but low-effort engagement signal that provides almost no context about audience quality, sentiment depth, or purchase intent. Short emoji comments are commonly produced both by real followers (quick praise) and by bots/engagement pods (to inflate visible engagement), so the probability of inauthenticity is non-trivial — hence a moderate fakeness score with limited confidence. With this single data point the post's comment section is insufficient evidence to judge influencer suitability for advertising. Recommendation: collect more data before making a purchase decision — sample multiple recent posts, analyze comment variety (questions, long-form replies), commenter profiles (real accounts vs newly created or obviously bot-like), engagement rate vs follower count, timing patterns, and look for repetitive or templated comments across posts. Based on current evidence alone, treat the post as low-reliability for ad spend." }

Text: Non ça va je suis raisonnables sauf une fois et c'était la faute d'un avion😉🙂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal anecdote / conversational reply", "count": 1, "purpose": "Engagement and relationship-building: casual reply with humor and emojis, likely responding to a question or prior thread in the post's comments." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is written in French, informal and specific (mentions 'once' and blames an 'airplane'), uses emoji, and reads like a genuine human reply rather than a templated compliment or marketing message. This suggests low probability of being fake or bot-generated. However, this is only one comment — the sample is too small to draw robust conclusions about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising feasibility: this comment alone does not demonstrate purchase intent, brand affinity, or scalable engagement. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for repetition/generic phrases, check commenter account ages and activity (to detect sockpuppets), examine like-to-comment ratios and timing patterns, and look for comments that reference products, recommendations, or intent to buy. Based on the single comment, preliminary assessment is mildly positive for authenticity but insufficient evidence to confidently approve ad spend." }

Text: @cha_chrlne 🤌🏼🤌🏼🤌🏼🤌🏼 no compassion pour Patrick et Woogun

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive emphasis/enthusiasm or approval of the post using repeated hand-gesture emojis." }, { "type": "address/mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct address to the poster (@cha_chrlne) — signals a conversation or recognition of the poster/user." }, { "type": "negative sentiment / antagonistic", "count": 1, "purpose": "States 'no compassion for Patrick et Woogun' — expresses a negative stance toward named individuals, possibly banter, criticism or in-group teasing." }, { "type": "insider/community/commentary", "count": 1, "purpose": "Reference to specific people (Patrick and Woogun) suggests an in-group or topical conversation rather than generic praise or spam." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment combines enthusiastic emoji use with a specific, somewhat antagonistic text line in French: 'no compassion pour Patrick et Woogun.' The presence of a direct username mention, named individuals, and a language-specific phrase indicates it is likely an organic, in-group reaction rather than a generic bot comment. The repeated emojis increase engagement signal. However, the content shows negative sentiment toward third parties, which could point to controversy or community-specific humor/tension around those names. For advertising decisions: this single data point leans toward authentic engagement (low likelihood of being fake) but is insufficient to judge overall audience sentiment or safety. Recommendation: sample a larger set of recent comments (50–200) to check for patterns of toxicity, bot-like repetition, follower authenticity, and overall sentiment before committing ad spend. Potential minor risk: if negativity toward named individuals is common, the audience might be polarizing — verify brand fit." }

Text: Bonjour quel est ma référence de la robe de Caroline 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product inquiry / positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for the reference/model of a dress (product information request) while expressing positive sentiment (emoji) — indicates purchase interest or intent to obtain product details." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears genuine: a follower asking for the reference of 'Caroline's' dress and using a positive emoji, which suggests real interest and potential purchase intent. However, one comment is an extremely small sample and insufficient to draw strong conclusions about audience quality or overall authenticity. The low fakeness score reflects the comment's specific, conversational content (not a generic compliment or spammy phrase). For an ad-buy decision, this is a mildly positive signal but not decisive: you need a larger sample of recent comments, commenter account checks (real profiles, follower counts, activity), engagement rates (likes per post), and pattern analysis (repeated templated comments, timing bursts) before confirming influencer suitability." }

Text: Ah ouai !!!! 🤣 @maariondrs

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Reaction + Tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval (emoji and short phrase) and tag another account to draw their attention to the post." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ah ouai !!!! 🤣 @maariondrs') is a brief, informal French reaction with a tag. This pattern most commonly indicates a genuine viewer reacting and notifying a friend rather than a promotional or bot-generated message. Indicators of authenticity: natural language, language-specific phrasing, presence of a user tag (likely personal). Limitations: sample size is minimal (only one comment), so it's insufficient to conclude overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. There are no clear signs of mass-farming (no repeated generic praise, no links, no unrelated hashtags), but a single short comment could also come from an organized engagement pod or a low-effort bot — though that is less likely here. For advertising feasibility: current comment data is inconclusive and leans slightly positive for organic engagement, but you should not rely on it alone. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments (diversity, repetition), check commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, activity patterns), measure overall engagement rate (likes, saves, views vs. follower count), and look for signs of inorganic growth (sudden follower spikes, many short generic comments, repeated tags). Based on this single comment, I rate the comments' fakeness low (15/100) but give only moderate confidence; overall suitability for an ad buy is limited (40/100) until you provide broader comment and follower data." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or acknowledgement; low informational value. Common both among genuine followers and generic/bot accounts looking to increase apparent engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided (three laughing emojis). Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they do show a reaction but carry little topical content and are commonly produced by both real users and automated/generic accounts. With a single, content-free comment it's not possible to reliably judge authenticity or community quality. I rate the fakeness moderately high (60) because emoji-only comments are overrepresented among low-effort/bot interactions, but confidence is low (30) due to the extremely small sample. For advertising decisions, this comment alone is weak evidence of meaningful, brand-safe engagement. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts; inspect commenter profiles for real accounts vs. throwaway/bot signals (profile photo, bio, follower/following ratio, posting history); check timing patterns and repetition of identical comments; compute likes-to-comments and comment diversity metrics; and use an influencer-audit tool for automated fake-follower/comment detection. If most comments on the influencer's posts are similar (emoji-only, generic, or repetitive), reduce trust and negotiate lower rates or decline the placement." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (heart-eyes)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/positive sentiment; low-effort engagement to signal approval or affection without substantive endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of two heart-eyes emojis (\"😍😍\"). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently used by low-effort accounts or bots; without account metadata (age, follower count, activity), timestamps, or a larger sample of comments this is ambiguous. The comment signals positive sentiment but provides no informational value about purchase intent, audience relevance, or influence quality. Given the extremely small sample, the likelihood that this one comment is synthetic or low-quality is moderate (fakeness_score 55) but confidence is low (30). For advertising feasibility the information is insufficient — I rate overall 45 with low confidence (25). Recommendations: obtain a larger comment sample, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (profile photos, posting history, follower/following ratios), analyze like:comment ratio and comment diversity, request influencer analytics (reach, saves, shares, audience demographics), and consider a small paid trial to validate real engagement before committing to a larger ad buy." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses affection/approval; low-effort engagement that signals positive sentiment but offers no substantive feedback. Such comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by automated or low-quality accounts, so they have limited informational value." } ], "interpretation": "Dataset is extremely small (single comment: '❤️'). That comment type is positive but low information — it inflates visible engagement without indicating real interest, purchase intent, or audience quality. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can be authentic micro-reactions from real followers or low-effort/bot activity. Given only this one example, I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood (45/100) with low confidence (40/100). For advertising decisions this single heart gives little reassurance; overall readiness for ad spend is low (30/100) with low confidence (30/100). Recommended next steps before buying ads: collect a larger sample of recent comments, analyze commenter accounts (age, follower counts, posting history), check for repeated/duplicated comments, compare comment-to-like ratio and engagement rate, examine comment timing patterns, and run a follower authenticity audit. With more data a reliable assessment can be produced." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "express simple approval/affection (social endorsement); low informational value and commonly used both by genuine followers and low-effort/bot accounts" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two heart emojis. This is a terse, positive reaction that signals social approval but provides no actionable feedback (no questions, no product-specific commentary, no detail). Such short emoji-only comments are common among genuine followers but are also frequently produced by generic or automated accounts; with a single example we cannot reliably distinguish. Given this very limited sample, the apparent comment quality is low and does not support strong influence or audience advocacy evidence. For advertising feasibility I recommend gathering more data before deciding: collect a larger sample of recent comments, inspect commenter profiles for real account signals (profile photos, posting history, follower counts, mutual connections), check comment timestamps for bursts/repetition, compare comment diversity and length, and compute engagement rate (likes + comments relative to follower count). Based on the single emoji comment alone I assign a cautious, below-midline suitability score. This assessment has low confidence due to insufficient data." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji applause/praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive reaction: expresses approval/enthusiasm (clapping hands + fire). Low-information engagement likely intended to boost visible engagement rather than convey substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single, emoji-only comment was provided (seven clapping-hands and a fire emoji). Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine fans (quick praise) and from low-effort/bot or purchased engagement. Because the comment contains no specific content (no reference to the post, no questions, no user-specific language), it is a weak signal of real audience interest. The moderately high fakeness score reflects that pattern: short repeated emojis are often used by engagement farms or to inflate visible metrics, but can also legitimately come from casual followers.\n\nFor advertising-feasibility decisions this one comment is insufficient. Substantive indicators to request before buying ads or partnerships: overall comments volume and variety across recent posts, commenter account quality (age, follower/following ratio, profile picture, posting history), comment repetition patterns (same emojis/text across commenters or posts), like-to-comment ratios, timing spikes, and audience demographics. If most comments are emoji-only, short generic praise, or repeat across posts and come from low-quality accounts, that lowers conversion potential and suggests inauthentic engagement.\n\nRecommendation: Do not rely on this single emoji comment. Perform the fuller checks above. If broader comment data shows many similar low-effort entries and many commenters with shallow profiles, rate the account as low-quality for advertising (move toward rejecting or requiring audience verification). If broader data shows diverse, specific comments from authentic-looking accounts, then this single comment is harmless and can be ignored." }

Text: 🔥👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/approval with low effort; serves as lightweight social proof but provides no substantive engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single short emoji comment (🔥👏). That indicates positive reaction, but it is low-information: emojis are commonly used both by real followers and by low-effort engagement services. With only one comment there is insufficient signal to judge authenticity or audience quality. The fakeness score is moderate (45) because generic emoji comments are frequently produced by bots or engagement farms, but they are also common from genuine users; confidence is low (30) due to the tiny sample size. For advertising feasibility the overall score is neutral (50) with low confidence (35): there is some positive surface-level engagement but no substantive comments, conversation, or patterns to verify audience relevance or authenticity. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger set of recent comments, check commenter profiles for real accounts (followers, posting history), assess engagement rate versus follower count, look for repeat commenters and diversity of comment types, and review story views and saves for deeper signals." }

Text: C’est si beau 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive engagement (emotional reaction to visual content), likely intended to show appreciation or support." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"C’est si beau 😍😍\" is a brief, generic positive reaction with heart‑eyes emojis. As a standalone data point it signals favorable sentiment but provides little information about audience authenticity, intent, or targeting value. Generic compliments are common among real followers but are also easy to fabricate (bots or engagement pods), so I assign a low-to-moderate fakeness estimate (20/100) with moderate uncertainty. For advertising feasibility this comment alone is weak evidence: it shows that the post elicits positive reactions, but does not indicate meaningful engagement (no specifics, no questions, no tagging, no purchase intent) nor the diversity/quality of commenters. I recommend collecting more data before deciding on ad spend: number of unique commenters, comment diversity (language, length, content), timing patterns, commenter profile checks (real accounts vs. newly created or businessless accounts), like:comment ratio, follower counts, and historical engagement consistency. With only this comment, overall suitability for advertising is limited (score 45/100) and confidence in that assessment is low to moderate (40/100)." }

Text: Bravoo👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/encouragement and provide quick engagement signal (social reinforcement)." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single visible comment: \"Bravoo👏\". This is a generic, short positive reaction that signals approval but carries very little informational value about audience authenticity or engagement quality. Such one-word praise is common from genuine followers but is also commonly produced by bots or engagement-for-hire services because it is low effort and broadly applicable. Given the brevity and lack of contextual detail (no account metadata, timing, comment volume, or variety), the fakeness estimate is low-to-moderate (25) but with low confidence — the signal is too weak to be reliable. For advertising-purchase decisions, this single comment is insufficient evidence to judge the influencer’s audience quality. I recommend a deeper audit: collect total comment volume, ratio of substantive to generic comments, commenter account checks (activity, follower counts, profile pictures, comment frequency), temporal patterns, and engagement rates (likes/comments per follower). Based on the current limited sample, I would not rely on this alone; hence an overall suitability score of 40 with low confidence." }

Text: Trop bien bravo ! Ton camelback a l’air top aussi. D’où vient il ?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval and appreciation; boosts perceived social proof and engagement." }, { "type": "Product inquiry / Commercial intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks where the camelbak (water bottle/backpack) is from — indicates interest in the product and potential purchase intent; invites a reply from the influencer." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as a genuine follower interaction: an enthusiastic compliment plus a direct question about the product. Linguistic cues (natural phrasing in French, punctuation, combination of praise and a specific product question) reduce the likelihood of automation or generic bot activity. For advertising feasibility, this is a positive signal — it shows follower interest in product details and potential conversion opportunity. Caveats: this assessment is based on only one comment; broader patterns (volume of similar comments, diversity of commenters, timing, and account-follow relationships) should be checked to confirm authenticity and sustained engagement. Recommendation: treat this as a useful micro-indicator of real audience interest and consider follow-up (reply or product mention) and further sampling of comments to validate at scale." }

Text: T’es tellement motivante !! Il faut que je testes cette marque 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses admiration and emotional support for the influencer (boosts perceived likability)." }, { "type": "Brand interest / Purchase intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Indicates intent to try the featured brand/product, which is useful signal for advertisers." }, { "type": "Engagement / Relationship-building", "count": 1, "purpose": "Maintains follower-influencer interaction and increases visible engagement metrics (likes/comments)." } ], "interpretation": "Translation: \"You’re so motivating!! I need to try this brand 😍\". The comment is short, uses colloquial contraction (\"T’es\"), an emoji and a minor nonstandard verb form (\"testes\"), which are typical of spontaneous human replies. That makes it likely genuine rather than obviously bot-generated or copy-paste spam. It is positive and contains explicit brand interest — a useful micro-conversion signal for advertisers. However, this is a single data point: one positive comment alone is insufficient to judge overall audience authenticity or commercial responsiveness. Assessment rationale: low fakeness score (15) because language features suggest a human commenter, but not zero because short generic compliments can also come from engagement pods or paid commenters. Confidence in that fakeness judgment is moderate-high (70) due to the linguistic cues but limited sample size. Overall feasibility for advertising is rated neutral to slightly positive (50) with moderate-low confidence (45) because while the sentiment is favorable, there is no information about comment volume, diversity, commenter accounts, timing, or conversion history. Recommendation: request a larger sample of recent comments (ideally 50–200), examine commenter profiles for real follower signals (profile photos, posting history, follower counts), check comment timestamps for suspicious batching, measure overall engagement rate and past sponsored post performance before committing to ad spend." }

Text: 👏 ça y est moi aussi je me suis inscrite à mon premier trail solo 13 kms 530 d+ pour commencer hâte de vivre cette expérience 🔥 et merci pour ton inspiration ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal action / testimonial", "count": 1, "purpose": "Follower reports they registered for an event as a result of the influencer's inspiration — strong social proof indicating influence on behaviour." }, { "type": "Gratitude / compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Thanks the influencer and expresses appreciation, reinforcing positive sentiment and creator credibility." }, { "type": "Emotional engagement / encouragement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Use of emojis and excited language to show enthusiasm and genuine emotional response, increasing perceived engagement quality." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as organic and specific: it names a concrete action (registering for a 13 km trail with 530 m climb), expresses excitement and gratitude, and uses context-specific details and emojis. Those characteristics reduce likelihood of it being fake (bot/paid generic praise). Fakeness score is low (10/100) with fairly high confidence because the comment is detailed and not formulaic.\n\nHowever, this is only one data point. For advertising-decision purposes, comments should be evaluated in aggregate: volume, diversity of commenters, follower profiles, timing patterns, recurrence of similar phrasing, and overall engagement rate. One genuine-sounding supportive comment is a positive signal — it indicates the influencer can inspire follower action — but it is not sufficient by itself to conclude strong audience authenticity or ad ROI potential.\n\nRecommended next checks before purchase: (1) sample ~50–200 recent comments to assess consistency, (2) inspect commenter accounts for real profiles and follower/following ratios, (3) check the timing distribution of likes/comments to detect bursts, (4) calculate engagement rate (comments + likes relative to followers) and compare to niche benchmarks, and (5) look for repetitive/templated comments that would raise fakeness.\n\nOverall assessment: promising sign (follower action + positive sentiment) but insufficient evidence alone to greenlight an ad buy; further comment and audience audit required." }

Text: Pour le problème de poche d’eau qui fait du bruit dans le sac d’hydratation : retourner la poche de bas en haut et aspirer l’air c’est tip top comme technique 🤗

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "advice/tip", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provides practical troubleshooting guidance (how to stop noise in a hydration bladder). Signals user knowledge-sharing and adds utility to the post." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a specific, practical tip in French about flipping a hydration bladder and sucking out air to stop noise. Content-specific, phrased naturally, includes an emoji and conversational tone — characteristics consistent with a genuine user reply rather than a generic promotional or bot-like comment. Given that there's only one comment provided, engagement volume is extremely low; the quality of this comment suggests authenticity, but the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience or comment authenticity on the influencer's account. For advertising feasibility: the authentic nature of this comment is a positive sign, but the very low visible engagement limits confidence that the influencer has an active, responsive audience for paid campaigns. Recommendation: request a larger sample of recent posts/comments and engagement metrics (likes, comment volume, follower demographics) before making an ad-buy decision." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "heart_emoji / generic_positive_short_comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple positive sentiment or support; low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction counts. Could be a genuine follower quickly reacting or an automated/bot-like reaction — ambiguous without more context." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of a heart emoji is available. Heart-only comments are common and provide very low signal about audience genuineness or interest depth. They boost superficial engagement metrics but do not indicate meaningful conversation, purchase intent, or demographic fit. The fakeness estimate (40/100) reflects that such short reactions can be both genuine and produced by automated accounts; confidence is moderate-low because a single short comment is insufficient evidence. For advertising feasibility this sample is weak (overall score 30/100) — it neither confirms an engaged, relevant audience nor clearly shows manipulation. Recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, commenter handles, engagement rate over multiple posts, temporal patterns, and follower quality indicators before making a buy decision." }

Text: J’adore cette marque et trop contente de la trouver a Sephora mtnt 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive endorsement / fan praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses liking of the brand and excitement about availability at a major retailer (social proof / endorsement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('J’adore cette marque et trop contente de la trouver a Sephora mtnt 😍') appears genuine: it's in natural French, names a real retailer (Sephora), uses casual phrasing and an emoji. These features make it more likely to be an organic fan comment rather than a recycled or generic bot message. However, this assessment is based on one isolated comment with no commenter metadata (account age, follower count, posting history) and no broader comment sample to check for repetition or coordinated behavior. Given that limitation, there remains a modest chance it could be paid/solicited or part of an influencer-driven promotional push, but nothing in the text alone strongly indicates fakery. For advertising feasibility, a single positive comment is weak evidence of authentic, engaged audience interest; more data is needed (volume of similar comments, commenter quality, engagement rate, diversity of commenters, timestamps). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments on this post and other recent posts, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (followers, posting history, avatar), check for repeated identical comments across posts, and compare like:comment ratios to typical organic benchmarks before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express short positive sentiment/approval and boost visible engagement; low informational value. Such comments can be genuine quick reactions from followers but are also commonly produced by bots or engagement farms." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single emoji-only comment (two heart-eyes) is available. Emoji-only comments indicate positive sentiment but provide no substantive engagement (no endorsement, question, or detail). These comments are common both from real followers offering quick praise and from automated or low-effort engagement (bots, comment pods). Given the lack of contextual signals (commenter profile, frequency of similar comments, timing relative to post, distribution across posts), the fakeness assessment is uncertain and leans toward possible inauthenticity because emoji-only replies are often used to inflate engagement. For advertising feasibility: this single comment is insufficient to judge audience quality or authenticity. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, activity), repetition patterns across posts, comment like counts, and engagement rates versus follower count before purchasing ad space. Current limited data suggests caution (moderate-low suitability)." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort positive engagement: expresses approval/affection, increases visible engagement but gives no information about intent to purchase or genuine interest." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment consisting of a heart emoji. This is a very low-information signal: it indicates a positive sentiment but not purchase intent, audience relevance, or influence. Emoji-only comments are commonly left both by real followers (quick positive feedback) and by bots/engagement pods (to inflate engagement), so the fakeness assessment is uncertain. Given the lack of substantive comments, diversity, or conversation, the comment section provides weak evidence of authentic, high-value engagement. For an advertising buy decision, this sample alone would not be sufficient. Recommended next steps before purchasing: inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting activity), overall comment volume and variety across several posts, like-to-comment and save/share metrics, story interactions, audience demographics, and past ad performance or case studies from the influencer. If these additional signals are also weak or similarly low-effort, treat the influencer as a higher-risk buy." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses admiration/positive reaction; serves as low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction but conveys no substantive endorsement or intent to convert. Could be genuine fan reaction or automated/low-quality engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of two heart-eyes emojis. Emoji-only comments are a weak signal: they indicate positive sentiment at face value but provide no actionable endorsement and are common both among real followers and automated/low-effort accounts. Given this single, non-verbal comment, there's moderate suspicion of low-quality or inorganic engagement (hence the fakeness score), but confidence is low because the sample is tiny. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment alone is insufficient — recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments for variety and specificity, checking commenter account authenticity (age, follower ratio, posting activity), the like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns, repeated phrases across posts, and audience demographics before committing to a purchase." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (hearts)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive reaction / applause / emotional support; low informational value but signals engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it is a simple heart-emoji sequence (\"❤️❤️❤️\"). Emoji-only comments are common among genuine followers as quick expressions of appreciation, but they are also frequently produced by bots or purchased engagement because they require no context and are easy to scale. Given the single sample: - Signal: positive but shallow engagement (likes or emojis indicate receptiveness). - Noise: very low informational content; cannot infer audience relevance, purchase intent, or real enthusiasm. - Risk of inauthenticity: moderate-to-high because short generic comments are typical of automated or incentivized activity; however a single emoji from a real fan is equally plausible. Recommendations for advertiser assessment: 1) Obtain a larger sample of comments and timestamps to check diversity, language, and reply threads. 2) Inspect commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting frequency, profile photos) to identify likely bots or farm accounts. 3) Compare likes-to-comments ratio and examine whether the same emoji/comments recur across multiple posts. 4) Use third-party follower-audit tools or request influencer-sourced audience demographics/insights. Conclusion: With only one emoji-only comment, engagement quality appears weak for making an advertising decision; further investigation is required before purchase." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji praise (generic positive)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive reaction/affection; primarily serves to inflate visible engagement (likes/comments) without providing informative feedback or social proof about the content or product." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a string of heart-eyes emojis (\"😍😍😍😍\"). This is a very generic positive engagement signal: it shows approval but contains no detail, personalization, or context. Such emoji-only comments are common both from genuine fans and from low-effort engagement (bots, engagement pods, or purchased comments). Because it's short and non-specific there is a meaningful chance it is low-quality engagement rather than a strong signal of authentic audience interest. With only one comment available, confidence in any judgement is limited. For ad-buy decisions this single comment is not persuasive: it neither demonstrates product interest nor provides influencer credibility. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for specificity, repetition of identical comments, commenter profile authenticity (age, follower/following ratio, engagement history), timestamps (suspicious clustering), and comment-to-like ratio across multiple posts to form a reliable assessment." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express affection/approval and superficially increase visible engagement; low informational value (no discussion or product-specific feedback)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a sequence of heart emojis (11 hearts). Emoji-only comments often indicate positive sentiment but are low-effort and are commonly produced both by genuine fans and by automated or purchased engagement services. Given only one comment to evaluate, I assign a moderate-to-high fakeness likelihood (60/100) because the comment is generic, lacks context, and is the type easily faked. Confidence is moderate (65/100) because with only one data point it is difficult to be certain. For advertising feasibility the signal is weak: this comment provides positive sentiment but no real user intent, product interest, or persuasive social proof — hence an overall score of 45/100 with moderate confidence (55/100). Recommendations: examine the commenter profile(s) (age of account, follower/following ratio, posting history), look for volume and diversity of comments across posts, check like-to-comment ratios and presence of meaningful, product-relevant comments, and review temporal patterns (many identical emoji comments in short time windows suggests inorganic activity). More complete assessment requires a larger sample of comments and metadata." }

Text: 🔥🙌🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/positive reaction with no substantive content; serves as lightweight engagement (likes-equivalent). Could be genuine fan reaction, low-effort support, or part of engagement pods/bots." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single emoji-only comment (\"🔥🙌🔥\"). Emoji-only responses are low-information: they indicate positive sentiment but do not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, intent to purchase, or conversational engagement. Such short comments are commonly genuine casual reactions from followers but are also frequently produced by engagement pods or low-effort bot accounts. Given the single comment, confidence is limited; the fakeness score is moderate because the format is ambiguous. For advertising feasibility this kind of comment is weak evidence of a responsive, high-value audience. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger set of comments for frequency of substantive replies, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts vs. bot signals (profile photos, follower counts, posting history), check comment timing patterns (many comments posted in bursts), and measure overall engagement rate and conversion indicators (link clicks, stories responses). Without that additional data, treat this post's comment quality as insufficient to justify a strong positive recommendation for ad spend." }

Text: La qualité est superbe !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / Compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive opinion about product quality and provide social proof/endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single short, positive comment: \"La qualité est superbe !\". This functions as a generic compliment that can act as social proof, but with only one comment the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. The phrasing is typical of genuine satisfied users but is also consistent with low-effort engagement (bots, engagement pods, or paid commenters). Given the limited data, fakeness risk is moderate (estimated 40/100) with moderate uncertainty. For advertising buy decisions, this single comment offers weak evidence of authentic, engaged audience — request more comments, diversity of feedback, like counts, audience demographics, and historical engagement patterns before proceeding. Consider asking for recent post metrics (comments per follower, saves/shares, reach) or running a small paid test campaign to validate performance." }

Text: Wowwww 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short generic praise with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/positive reaction; increases visible engagement but carries low informational value (no product-related feedback or intent)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Wowwww 😍😍😍😍\" is a low-effort positive reaction typical of fans or casual viewers. Such comments are common and can be genuine, but they are also frequently produced by bots or purchased engagement because they require minimal effort and contain only emojis and brief praise. Given only one comment to analyze, there is insufficient evidence to reliably determine authenticity or audience quality. Recommendation: perform a broader audit before making advertising decisions — examine commenter profiles (followers, posting history, avatar, bio), distribution of comment types across multiple posts, timing patterns, ratio of unique commenters to likes, and sentiment/content richness. With the current data, treat this engagement as weak signal: it indicates some positive reaction but does not confirm a responsive, authentic audience for ads." }

Text: La qualité à l’air génial ! Toi qui en cherché un regardes @r.e.n.o.r.g 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive compliment + referral/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise about product quality and direct other users to a tagged account (recommendation or cross-promotion)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads as a positive product endorsement with a tag of another account (@r.e.n.o.r.g) and an affectionate emoji. This can be genuine — a follower recommending the product or seller to someone — but tagging a third account is also a common pattern for promotional spam, affiliate referrals, or coordinated cross-promotion. The casual grammar and emoji use are consistent with human commenters, reducing but not eliminating suspicion. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient evidence to firmly conclude authenticity. For an advertising decision: verify the commenter and tagged account profiles (age, posting history, follower/following ratios), look for repeated identical comments across posts, and evaluate overall comment diversity and like-to-follower ratios on the influencer's post feed. If many comments are similar tags/recommendations, treat engagement as suspect; if comments are varied and from real-looking accounts, the engagement is more likely genuine." }

Text: Jen veu un 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive_purchase_intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses desire to own the item (likely 'J'en veux un' = 'I want one'), signaling conversion interest and product appeal." }, { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Use of heart-eyes emojis to amplify positive sentiment and friendly engagement." }, { "type": "bot_or_generic_promo", "count": 0, "purpose": "No evidence of templated/bot-like phrasing, repeated copy, links, or promotional handles in this comment." } ], "interpretation": "The comment 'Jen veu un 😍😍' is most plausibly a misspelled/contract-lacking French phrase 'J'en veux un' ('I want one') followed by heart-eyes emojis. That indicates direct interest in the product and positive sentiment — useful signal for conversion potential. The short, language-specific phrasing plus emoji use looks organic rather than bot-like. However, this analysis is based on a single comment: the sample is too small to generalize about the overall comment authenticity or the influencer's audience quality. For an advertising purchase decision, gather more data (volume and diversity of comments, like counts on comments, timing patterns, follower quality, proportion of similar comments, presence of repeated templated replies) before concluding. Given the limited input, I rate the fakeness low (15) with moderate confidence and give a cautious overall suitability score (55) with lower confidence." }

Text: Et la qualité 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive praise (product quality)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise/endorsement and signal approval or attraction to the product/post." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"Et la qualité 😍\" (French — praising the quality). This is a short, positive engagement that likely aims to compliment the product or post. It appears genuine in tone but is generic and could easily come from a casual follower, an engagement pod, or a low-effort purchased comment — there is not enough contextual information to distinguish. The comment does not indicate purchase intent, deep engagement, or provide questions/feedback that demonstrate a real user journey.\n\nOverall assessment for advertising feasibility: insufficient evidence. One short positive comment is mildly encouraging but not persuasive on its own. Recommend obtaining more data before a buy decision: number and diversity of comments across multiple posts, commenter profiles (age, activity, follower/following ratio), like counts, engagement rate relative to follower count, comment timestamps and repetition patterns, and any conversion metrics or past campaign results. If you must proceed, run a small test campaign or request the influencer's media kit and audience quality verification.\n\nReasoning behind scores: fakeness_score set moderately low (30) because the comment reads natural but is generic; fakeness_confidence is low-moderate (40) due to extremely limited sample. overall_score set slightly above neutral (55) because positive sentiment is present but insufficient signal; overall_confidence is low (30) because the analysis is based on a single comment." }

Text: Canon 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Brand mention / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for the post and/or note the camera brand (brand affinity or compliment)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is provided: \"Canon 😍\". This is most consistent with a simple, positive brand mention or admiration of the image (either praising the subject or noting the camera/brand). It contains no obvious spam markers (no links, repetitive phrases, or solicitation), but its brevity and lack of context make it possible — though not likely — to be a low-effort or generic comment (bot or paid engagement). Given the extremely small sample size, confidence in any judgment is limited. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single comment provides weak evidence of genuine, engaged audience interest. Recommended next steps before purchasing ad inventory: review a larger set of recent comments, check commenter account quality (profile, activity, follower count), look for patterns (repeated phrases, timestamps), and evaluate like/reply ratios to assess authentic engagement." }

Text: Bonsoir bonne année 2026 à toi 🎉🍾🥂🧸🎊

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Greeting / Congratulatory", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express goodwill (New Year wish); general positive engagement but no product-related intent or specific endorsement. Low informational value for ad targeting." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Bonsoir bonne année 2026 à toi 🎉🍾🥂🧸🎊\" is a straightforward New Year greeting in French with celebratory emojis. This is most likely a genuine short-form engagement (a follower or acquaintance offering holiday wishes) rather than a targeted promotional comment. It provides almost no signal about purchase intent, audience demographics, or influence-driven conversions. Because it's generic and could be posted by either a real follower or an automated/generic account, I assign a low-to-moderate fakeness probability (20%) with moderate confidence (50%).\n\nOverall advertising-feasibility assessment based on this single comment is low (35) with limited confidence (40) — there is insufficient comment data to judge audience authenticity or engagement quality. Recommend expanding analysis to: number of comments, comment diversity, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and presence of repeated/generic replies before making a buy decision." }

Text: Et au resto 🤭😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "conversational/relational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short, context-related reaction referring to the post content ('And at the restaurant') with emoji — likely a follower/friend remark or casual engagement rather than promotional or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Et au resto 🤭😂' appears organic: it's context-specific, written in natural language, and uses expressive emojis without links or hashtags. That suggests a real follower reaction rather than a bot or paid engagement. However, one short comment is insufficient to judge the overall authenticity or commercial value of the influencer's audience. Confidence in the fakeness assessment is moderate because the sample size is minimal. For an advertising purchase decision, you should analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratios, temporal posting patterns, and look for repetitive/generic templates or promotional comments that indicate inauthentic engagement. Based on this single comment alone the ad-feasibility signal is weak-to-moderate (score ~45) with moderate uncertainty." }

Text: 😍😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive reaction / boost visible engagement (low-information, not conversational)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided is two emojis (😍😂). Emoji-only comments are common as quick, low-effort positive reactions and can be either genuine or automated. They provide almost no topical or purchase-intent signal. Because there is only one comment to analyze, confidence in any authenticity judgment is limited. Indicators slightly increasing the chance of being inorganic: very short, generic content and no conversational hooks; indicators for being organic: emojis are commonly used by real followers to show appreciation. For advertising-feasibility: this comment is low-quality evidence of an engaged, conversion-ready audience. Recommend additional checks before buying ad space: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for diversity (questions, mentions, long replies), check commenter profiles for real accounts (profile photos, posting history, follower counts), look for repeated emoji-only comments or comment patterns, compare comment rate to follower count and likes, and inspect posting timestamps for unnatural clustering. With only this data point, treat engagement as low-quality and proceed with caution." }

Text: La stratégie de DJI est en réalité judicieuse : l'évitement d'obstacles est leur domaine de prédilection.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive opinion / endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise the brand's strategy and highlight a technical strength (obstacle avoidance); expresses approval and implicit endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a concise, positive appraisal of DJI's strategy, specifically citing obstacle-avoidance as their specialty. Its specificity (naming a feature/strategy) and neutral tone (no marketing buzzwords, no links or emojis) point toward a likely genuine user opinion or a knowledgeable fan rather than an obviously automated or copy-pasted promotional reply. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall comment authenticity or the influencer's audience quality. For advertising decisions, gather a larger, random sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (follower counts, posting history), and measure engagement rates and comment diversity. Based on the single comment, there are no strong signals of inauthentic activity, but confidence is limited; therefore the feasibility score for advertising is moderate and should be revisited after a broader audit." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (laughing 😂)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive emotional reaction and provide low-effort engagement; increases visible engagement but conveys no purchase intent or substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment composed of two laughing emojis is a low-information, low-effort engagement signal. It likely comes from a real follower reacting emotionally (genuine) but could also be posted by an automated account—emoji-only comments are common for both humans and bots. This comment does not indicate interest in a product, intent to buy, or detailed audience sentiment. For advertising purchase decisions, this single emoji comment is weak evidence of meaningful, monetizable engagement. Recommend collecting more comments, commenter profile data (account age, follower count, posting behavior), comment-to-like ratios, and the distribution of substantive comments before concluding on influencer suitability." }

Text: J’en rêve ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/expressive (short with emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Выразить восхищение/желание в отношении контента или продукта; добавить видимое социальное подтверждение (social proof)." } ], "interpretation": "Комментарию соответствуют короткая эмоциональная реакция на французском — «J’en rêve ❤️» («Мечтаю об этом»). По содержанию он выглядит естественно и направлен на выражение желания/восхищения; вероятность того, что этот конкретный комментарий фейковый, невысока, но оценка ненадежна из-за единичности выборки. Один короткий комментарий не даёт информации о качестве аудитории, её вовлечённости или наличии ботов/накруток. Для решения о покупке рекламы нужны дополнительные данные: полный массив комментариев (и их разнообразие), временные метки, соотношение лайков/комментариев к числу подписчиков, профили комментаторов (реальные аккаунты или пустышки), повторяющиеся фразы/шаблоны. На текущей основе сигнал слабый — есть положительная реакция, но её объёма и доказательств подлинности недостаточно для уверенной рекомендации о покупке рекламы. Рекомендация: провести более глубокий аудит комментариев и аудитории перед принятием решения." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple support/affection; low informational value. Commonly used by genuine followers but also by bots/engagement farms to inflate counts." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment consisting of three heart emojis. Emoji-only comments are a weak signal: they indicate some level of engagement but provide no content-specific or purchase-intent information. Such comments are easy for both real followers and automated/bulk-engagement services to generate, so the probability of this comment being fake is moderate. Given only this one short, non-substantive comment, you cannot reliably judge audience quality or ad suitability. For advertising decisions, this sample is insufficient — recommend analyzing a larger set of recent comments and posts for (1) proportion of substantive comments vs. emoji-only, (2) diversity of commenters and follower profiles, (3) timing patterns (bursts indicating bought engagement), and (4) reply ratios and conversation depth. Based on this single comment, I rate the post's comment quality low (overall_score 25) with moderate confidence; further data is required for a robust decision." }

Text: Les aspirateurs robots DJI sont vraiment excellents ,ils ont une grande puissance d'aspiration.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive promotional/product endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise product features (positive sentiment). Likely intended to promote the product or signal approval to other viewers — could be organic praise, an affiliate/brand message, or a botged promotional comment." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment in French states: \"Les aspirateurs robots DJI sont vraiment excellents, ils ont une grande puissance d'aspiration.\" It's a short, generic, strongly positive endorsement that names the brand and a feature (suction power) but gives no personal details or context. That pattern is common both for genuine quick praise and for scripted/promotional/bot comments. Given only one comment to evaluate, confidence is limited. The comment's generic wording and lack of personal experience raise suspicion (hence a moderate-high fakeness score). For influencer advertising decisions this single comment provides weak, unreliable social proof. Recommended next steps before purchasing ad space: (1) analyze larger sample of comments for repetition/same phrasing, commenter account quality (age, activity, followers, profile picture), and comment timing patterns; (2) request influencer's engagement reports and audience demographics; (3) check for multiple similar comments across posts (sign of inorganic engagement). Based on current evidence, treat this post's comment engagement as low-quality and proceed with caution." }

Text: J'ai adoré cette vidéo, elle m'a fait penser à Buster Keaton. Je suis aussi une grande fan de cet aspirateur robot ,il est incroyablement performant à tous points de vue.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal reaction / content reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enjoyment of the video and make a specific cultural reference (Buster Keaton) indicating engagement with the content." }, { "type": "Product endorsement / testimonial", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise and recommend a product (robot vacuum) — could be genuine user recommendation or promotional messaging." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment combines a content-specific reaction (mentioning Buster Keaton) with enthusiastic product praise. The specific cultural reference leans toward a real viewer response, while the generic superlative about the vacuum ('incroyablement performant à tous points de vue') is a common pattern in both genuine testimonials and scripted/paid comments. Given only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. I assess a low-to-moderate likelihood of fakeness (25/100) but with limited confidence (40/100). For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single comment is weak evidence: overall suitability score 45/100 with 35/100 confidence. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter account legitimacy (age, follower count, posting history), compare like-to-comment ratios, look for repetitive phrasing across multiple comments, and request influencer engagement metrics (reach, demographic breakdown, average authentic comment rate) before purchasing advertising." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; low-effort engagement that signals attention but carries no clear purchase intent or substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is a single comment consisting of three laughing emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers as quick reactions but are also commonly produced by low-effort engagement bots or users seeking visibility. This single instance provides a weak signal: it increases visible engagement but offers no qualitative information about audience intent, sentiment beyond amusement, or product interest. Because there is only one comment, the ability to judge authenticity or the audience's value for advertising is limited. Recommendation: evaluate a larger set of comments for diversity (questions, long-form feedback, tagged friends), check follower quality (audience demographics, follower growth patterns), look for repeated/identical short comments across posts, and compare likes-to-comments ratios. Based on the available single comment, treat the comment quality as low and proceed cautiously when assessing this influencer for ad spend; require more engagement data before making a buying decision." }

Text: Romo est tellement silencieux que je peux le laisser tourner la nuit. Mon ancien Ecovacs était beaucoup trop bruyant.

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive testimonial / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express satisfaction and recommend product (endorses quietness)." }, { "type": "competitive comparison", "count": 1, "purpose": "Compares product favorably against a competitor (Ecovacs) to highlight advantage." }, { "type": "user-experience detail", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provides a specific use-case (can run overnight) to add credibility and practical value." } ], "interpretation": "The comment reads like a brief, plausible user testimonial: natural French, a concrete benefit (very quiet), and a direct comparison to a known competitor (Ecovacs). These features lower the likelihood of it being fake, but its brevity and positivity mean it could still be manufactured (e.g., a paid or incentivized endorsement). Because this is a single comment, it provides only a weak-to-moderate positive signal about organic audience sentiment. For advertising-buy decisions, this comment alone suggests the product is perceived positively on noise — useful if noise is a campaign focus — but you should not rely on one comment. Recommended next steps: review volume and diversity of comments, comment timestamps (burst patterns), commenter account authenticity (age, followers, posting history), overall engagement rate, and presence of repeated phrasing across comments. With that additional audit you can raise confidence in influencer suitability." }

Text: 🥰🥰🥰

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/support; low-effort engagement likely intended to show affection or approval and to increase visible engagement (likes/comments)." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment consisting of three 'smiling face with hearts' emojis. This is a generic, positive, low-effort engagement signal. Such comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or users leaving minimal reactions. With only one short emoji comment there is very little signal about the audience quality, interest depth, or authenticity of engagement. For advertising decisions this comment alone is weak evidence of an engaged, valuable community. I recommend further checks before purchasing ads: examine number of comments per post over time, diversity and substance of comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), like-to-follower and comment-to-like ratios, and whether identical emoji comments appear repeatedly across multiple posts. Based on this single comment, the post shows low meaningful engagement and ambiguous authenticity." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or quick positive reaction; low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction but provides no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three laughing emojis. This is a very small sample and limits reliable inference. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers as quick reactions, but they are also extremely easy to fabricate or buy as low-effort engagement. Given that, I assess a moderate likelihood of fakeness (45) but with low confidence (30) because there is insufficient context (no commenter account info, timing, comment-to-like ratio, or other comments). For advertising feasibility the score is low (30) with low confidence (25): one emoji comment does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, conversation, or intent. Recommended next steps before any ad buy: analyze a larger set of comments, inspect commenter account authenticity (age, posting history, follower quality), check engagement rates (likes, saves, shares), timing patterns, and diversity of comment content to better determine genuine influence." }

Text: DJI👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "brand mention / endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short positive mention of a recognizable brand (DJI) that can function as endorsement or brand association." }, { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Use of a single emoji (thumbs up) indicating a brief positive reaction rather than substantive engagement." }, { "type": "ambiguous possible spam/bot", "count": 1, "purpose": "Very short, generic comment that matches common patterns of promotional or bot comments placed to gain visibility or appear in feeds." } ], "interpretation": "There is only one comment: \"DJI👍\". Its brevity and focus on a brand name with an emoji are ambiguous — it could be a genuine quick endorsement from a follower, a user tagging/mentioning the brand, or a low-effort promotional/bot comment. Red flags for inauthenticity: generic one-word brand mention, lack of personalization, and emoji-only expression. However, with a single data point the assessment is uncertain. For ad-buy decisions, do not rely on this alone: inspect the commenter profile (age, follower count, posting history, reciprocity), search for multiple identical comments across the influencer’s posts, and evaluate overall comment volume/variety and like-to-comment ratios. If many comments are similarly short/brand-only, authenticity risk increases and the influencer’s audience quality is likely low. If most comments are conversational and this is an outlier, it’s less concerning." }

Text: J’adore 😂 je vais craquer sur le robot ... surtout pas sur le lapin par😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive praise / emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enthusiasm and positive sentiment toward the post/product (social proof)." }, { "type": "Purchase intent / interest", "count": 1, "purpose": "Explicit statement of likely purchase ('je vais craquer') — signals conversion potential." }, { "type": "Product preference / comparison", "count": 1, "purpose": "States a clear preference for the 'robot' over the 'rabbit', useful for understanding which variant resonates." }, { "type": "Casual / organic language (emoji, typo)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Informal phrasing, emoji and a probable typo are consistent with genuine user comments and reduce likelihood of automation." }, { "type": "Spam / bot indicators", "count": 0, "purpose": "No links, generic one-word praise, repetitive phrasing or other common bot/spam patterns present." } ], "interpretation": "This single French comment ('J’adore 😂 je vais craquer sur le robot ... surtout pas sur le lapin par😂') reads as genuine: it uses informal language, emoji, and a minor typo, and it contains both enthusiasm and an expressed intention to buy the 'robot' rather than the 'rabbit'. Those are positive signals for product interest and variant preference. However, it's only one comment — too small a sample to conclude meaningful influencer effectiveness for advertising spend. Fakeness is likely low (≈10/100) given the organic features of the text. For a reliable advertising decision, analyze a larger comment sample, commenter account authenticity (followers, posting history), timing and diversity of comments, comment likes, and overall engagement rate. Based on this lone comment, overall feasibility is low–moderate (30/100) with moderate-to-low confidence due to the limited data." }

Text: J’aime bcp le scénario 😁🐰

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Appreciation / Compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive feedback about the content (likes the scenario); serves to signal approval and basic engagement from a viewer/follower." } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is extremely small (one comment). The single comment — \"J’aime bcp le scénario 😁🐰\" — is in French, casually phrased and contains emojis, which are characteristics more consistent with a genuine user than a templated bot message. There are no obvious spam or promotional markers and no repetitive/patterned text to suggest automation. However, a single positive comment is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or engagement depth for advertising decisions. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of recent comments, check comment timestamps, user profiles (follower counts, activity, post history), like-to-comment ratios, and look for repeated wording across many comments to better detect fake engagement before committing to ad spend." }

Text: J’adore tes idées 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses appreciation for the creator's ideas — signals positive sentiment and social approval; may increase perceived value of the post." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"J’adore tes idées 😍😍\" is a short, well-formed French compliment with emojis. It most likely represents genuine positive engagement (a fan or follower liking the content), but it is also consistent with common generic praise used by bots or engagement farms. Given only one comment and no context (commenter profile, timing, other comments, like counts, or distribution across posts), authenticity cannot be established confidently. Fakeness risk is moderate-low (approx. 30%) because the phrasing is natural and language matches the post, but automated generic comments are frequent so uncertainty is non-trivial. Overall suitability for advertising is uncertain from this single comment: the presence of positive comments is a small positive signal, but insufficient alone to recommend purchase. Recommended next steps before buying ad space: inspect multiple recent posts for comment variety and repetition, check commenter accounts for real profiles (posting history, followers, profile picture), compare views/likes/comments ratios, request influencer's audience demographics and engagement metrics, and consider a small paid test campaign. Based on current limited evidence, assign a cautious midline overall score (50) with low-to-moderate confidence (40)." }

Text: 👏👏❤😘😘😘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Surface-level positive engagement (approval/affection). Provides social proof but no substantive endorsement or detail; commonly used by casual followers, acquaintances, or low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided and it consists solely of emojis (clapping, hearts, kisses). This is a low-information signal: it confirms some positive reaction but gives no detail about purchase intent, product knowledge, or genuine endorsement. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine casual followers but are also frequently produced by engagement farms or bots because they are easy and low-risk. Given the single example, I assign a moderate-to-high fakeness likelihood (60/100) with limited confidence (45/100) because the sample is too small to be decisive. For advertising-feasibility, the comment quality is weak — it does not demonstrate audience relevance, purchase intent, or meaningful conversation, so I rate overall suitability at 35/100 (confidence 45/100). Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history, usernames), look at like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and other posts to determine whether engagement is authentic before purchasing advertising or partnerships." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction / short positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express quick appreciation or positive reaction (low-effort engagement). May signal follower liking but contains no substantive feedback or intent to convert." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a heart emoji — a generic, low-effort positive reaction. This type of comment provides very little signal about audience quality, purchase intent, or topical engagement. It can be genuine (an actual follower showing appreciation) or produced by automated/bulk engagement (bots or engagement farms); with one emoji alone it is not possible to reliably distinguish. For advertising decisions this is weak evidence of meaningful audience interaction or conversion potential. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, full engagement metrics (likes, saves, reach, follower growth), follower authenticity checks (follower audits, audience demographics), and look for substantive comments (questions, testimonials, tagging, discussion) before approving ad spend." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval and increase visible engagement; no substantive feedback or product-specific information." } ], "interpretation": "The single observed comment is an emoji-only sequence (clapping hands, hearts, fire). This is a generic positive engagement signal that boosts visible metrics but provides no qualitative information about audience motivation, experience, or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are commonly produced both by genuine fans and by bots/engagement pods because they are low-effort and safe; given that, I assign a moderate-to-high fakeness likelihood (65) but with only moderate confidence (55) because the sample size is one. For advertising feasibility this comment is weak evidence of real, high-intent audience engagement: it does not indicate product interest, conversation, tagging, questions, or personal endorsement. Overall suitability for ad spend based on this comment alone is low (35) with modest confidence (45). Recommended next steps before purchasing: request more comment samples from multiple recent posts; audit commenter accounts for authenticity (account age, follower ratios, posting history); check for repeated identical emoji comments across posts; examine engagement rate, saves, shares, and story interactions; and seek comments that mention the product, pricing, or user experience to validate genuine interest." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick engagement/affection (low informational value). Can indicate a genuine fan reaction or low-effort automated/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment (two heart emojis) is available — this is very low-information. Emoji-only comments are common among genuine followers but are also frequently used by bots or engagement pods because they are low-effort and look natural. Given this alone, there is a modest chance of inauthenticity, but confidence in that judgment is low. For ad-buy decisions, comments of this form provide little evidence of a highly engaged, real audience. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition and timing patterns, inspect commenter profiles (age, followers, posting history), check like-to-comment ratios and overall engagement rate, and run a follower/audit tool to detect inorganic follower spikes. With only this single emoji comment, I would not rely on comments as a strong signal for ad-feasibility." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥 Bravo 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-heavy short compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Surface-level praise / social proof — quick positive reaction to the post, likely intended to show support or boost visible engagement. Could be genuine follower enthusiasm or low-effort/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: '🔥🔥🔥 Bravo 🔥🔥🔥'. This is a generic, emoji-rich compliment that gives minimal semantic information about the post or product. Such comments are common both among real followers offering quick praise and among automated/paid-engagement accounts. Signals that push toward possible inauthenticity: lack of specificity, heavy emoji use, and brevity. Signals that could indicate authenticity: brevity is also normal for real supporters. Given the extremely small sample (one comment) the assessment is tentative. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is insufficient positive evidence of meaningful, authentic audience engagement. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of comments for diversity and specificity, check commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), examine comment timestamps for patterns, measure overall engagement rate (likes vs follower count), and look for repeated identical comments across posts (a sign of purchased engagement). Based on the provided comment alone, treat engagement as weak-to-moderate and verify with deeper data before committing ad spend." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji support", "count": 1, "purpose": "express approval/encouragement and increase visible engagement (low-effort positive reaction)" } ], "interpretation": "The sole comment is a short applause emoji sequence (\"👏👏👏\"). This is a generic, low-effort positive reaction that provides minimal information about commenter intent or authenticity. Such emoji comments commonly come from genuine followers as quick praise but are also frequently produced by bots or bought-comment packs because they are easy to automate and non-specific. Given only one comment, the signal is weak — you cannot reliably assess audience quality or authenticity from this alone. Recommendation: inspect additional signals before buying advertising space (comment diversity and depth, commenter profile realism, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratio, follower quality, overall engagement rate, and recent post history). Current assessment: possible genuine engagement but insufficient evidence; treat as low-confidence and a weak positive indicator rather than proof of an engaged, authentic audience." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "express approval/encouragement; low-information engagement often used to signal support or increase visible interaction; can come from genuine followers, engagement pods, or bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is five clapping-hand emojis. Emoji-only comments are low-effort and provide very little signal about audience quality—they can be genuine quick reactions, members of an engagement pod, or automated/bot activity. Given the lack of additional comments, diversity, timestamps, or commenter profile data, authenticity is uncertain (hence a moderate fakeness score with low confidence). For advertising feasibility this single data point is insufficient and leans negative: it does not demonstrate meaningful conversation, purchase intent, or high-quality audience engagement. Recommended next steps before a buy decision: obtain a larger sample of comments, commenter account metadata (age, follower counts, activity), comment timestamps and repetition patterns, post impressions/views and like-to-view ratios, and look for varied, specific comments or questions that indicate real interest." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval; low informational value; serves to boost visible engagement. Could be genuine quick reaction from a follower or a low-effort/bot comment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“🔥🔥🔥”) is a generic, positive emoji-only reaction. Such comments are common and carry low signal for authenticity or meaningful audience interest: they may be from genuine followers offering quick praise or from automated/low-effort accounts. With only this comment available, it's not possible to reliably assess audience quality or ad-fit. Recommended next steps before buying advertising: inspect the commenter(s) profile(s) (age, activity, follower/following ratio), check the volume and variety of comments on multiple recent posts (content-specific comments vs. generic emojis), analyze comment timing and repeat commenters, and calculate overall engagement rate (likes + comments relative to followers). Based on this single emoji comment, I rate the risk of inauthentic engagement as moderate and the advertising-feasibility signal as low-to-moderate — more data is required for a confident decision." }

Text: 😍😍😍🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick expression of admiration/approval; increases visible engagement. Low-effort — could be genuine micro-reaction from a real follower or produced by bots/engagement pods." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: a cluster of heart-eyes and fire emojis (😍😍😍🔥🔥🔥🔥). Emoji-only comments are a weak signal. They commonly indicate positive sentiment but carry little informational content about intent, purchase interest, or authentic engagement. Such comments are frequently produced both by casual genuine followers (quick emotional reaction) and by inorganic sources (bot farms, purchased likes/comments, or coordinated engagement pods) because they are low-effort and generic. Given a single example, the fakeness estimate is moderately high (65) but confidence is low (35) because there is insufficient context. For advertising-feasibility decisions this sample is inconclusive: overall score 50 (neutral) with low confidence (30). Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts; check commenter profiles for real account signals (profile photos, bios, follower counts, posting history); look for repeating identical comments from many accounts; examine timing patterns (many comments within short windows); compare like:comment ratios and audience demographics. If many comments are emoji-only, repetitive, from newly created accounts, or show other bot signals, downgrade feasibility. If comments across posts show diverse, substantive feedback from established profiles, feasibility improves." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive/affirmative engagement — shows approval or praise but carries little informational value; could originate from a genuine follower, casual viewer, or automated/low-effort accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three clapping-hand emojis. Emoji-only comments are low-information signals of positive sentiment but are common both among real followers and bot/engagement-farm activity. With just one such comment it is impossible to reliably judge authenticity or audience quality. The moderately high fakeness score reflects the ambiguity and the fact that short generic emoji comments are often used in inorganic engagement; the low confidence scores reflect the very limited data. For advertising-feasibility assessment, comments of this type are weak evidence of an engaged, brand-relevant audience. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check for repeated identical comments, examine commenter profiles (account age, photo, follower/following ratios, activity), and compare comment diversity and conversation depth before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Winner🙌❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short praise / celebratory emoji comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express support/celebration for the post (positive reinforcement), increase visible engagement via a quick reaction" } ], "interpretation": "Assessment limited by extremely small sample (single comment: \"Winner🙌❤️\"). That comment is a one-line positive/celebratory message using emoji. Possible meanings: genuine follower congratulating or cheering, a casual fan reaction, or a generic/bought engagement comment intended to boost visible metrics. Short emoji comments are common among real followers but are also frequently produced by engagement pods and low-effort/fake accounts because they are quick and non-specific. Given the lack of context (no commenter profile details, no timestamp, no other comments or like counts), the fakeness estimate is conservative: somewhat leaning toward genuine (many real followers leave similar reactions) but with meaningful chance of being inorganic. For advertising feasibility: there is insufficient evidence to rate the audience as strongly authentic or valuable. A neutral score reflects that a single positive comment is a weak signal. Recommended next steps before purchase: gather more comments (and their timestamps), inspect commenter profiles for followers/following ratio, posting history, profile photos, and engagement patterns; compute overall comments-to-likes ratio and look for repeated generic comments or sudden spikes in engagement; check caption, hashtag patterns, and historical consistency of audience response. Only after analysing a larger sample and commenter accounts can you make a confident buy/no-buy decision." }

Text: Girlboss 🔥🩷🌸

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment/Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express support/admiration and provide lightweight engagement (positive reaction, signaling community affiliation)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Girlboss 🔥🩷🌸' is a short, positive, emoji-rich compliment. This is a common form of lightweight engagement that can be genuine (a follower showing support) or produced by followers in engagement pods or low-effort bot accounts. With only one comment available, the signal is weak: it indicates positive sentiment but provides no evidence of deep audience interaction (no questions, no product references, no detailed feedback). The moderate fakeness score reflects that the phrasing is generic enough to be used by bots or scripted engagement yet also typical of authentic fans. For advertising purchase decisions, comments of this type alone are insufficient: request more data (commenter profiles, comment diversity, timing patterns, overall engagement rate, and follower authenticity metrics) before concluding the audience quality. Based on this single comment, the post shows limited informative value for ad targeting — proceed cautiously and verify broader metrics." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive reaction/approval — low-effort support that shows appreciation or endorsement and contributes to visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a sequence of clapping emojis. This is a low-effort, positive reaction that can come from genuine followers, members of engagement pods, or automated/bot accounts. Strengths: it signals positive sentiment and increases visible engagement. Weaknesses: it contains no substantive text, no personalization, and therefore is a weak signal of real audience interest or purchase intent. Given one comment only, there is insufficient evidence to judge the quality of the influencer's audience or the authenticity of overall engagement. The moderate fakeness score (45) reflects that short emoji comments are commonly used both genuinely and fraudulently; confidence is limited because additional context is missing (commenter profile, timing, volume and variety of other comments, like counts, follower metrics). For advertising-feasibility decisions, do not rely on this comment alone — request more data: recent comment sample (20–50), commenter profile checks (follower counts, activity), engagement rate, ratio of substantive comments, audience demographics, and posting/engagement timing patterns. Given current limited evidence, the overall suitability score is low (30) with low-to-moderate confidence." }

Text: La meilleure toi 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive reinforcement for the influencer (social proof / encouragement). Short, emoji-supported praise that signals follower approval or friendly support." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"La meilleure toi 😍\" is a brief, positive compliment with an emoji. It most likely comes from a fan, friend, or engaged follower and serves to reinforce the creator's likability and social proof. However, with only one comment provided there is very limited signal to evaluate authenticity or the broader quality of engagement. The comment is generic enough that it could appear in organic conversations or be used in low-effort purchased comment packs; there is no clear sign of spam, link-pushing, or bot-like behavior, but the sample is too small to exclude manipulative tactics. For advertising feasibility this single positive comment is insufficient evidence of strong, authentic engagement. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity patterns), check comment-to-follower and like-to-follower ratios, look for repeated phrasing across comments, and review comment timing patterns. Based on the available data, I would rate the post's comment authenticity and ad-readiness as low-to-moderate; do not make an advertising purchase decision without further comment and profile-level analysis." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Applause emoji (👏)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval/encouragement; minimal-effort engagement that increases visible comment count and signals positive reaction. Could be genuine quick praise from a follower or a generic/bot reply used to inflate engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a low-effort applause emoji. Such comments provide very weak evidence about audience authenticity: they do indicate a positive reaction but lack content that ties the commenter to a real, engaged follower (no context, no personalized text). Short emoji replies are frequently produced both by genuine casual followers and by low-quality bot networks or engagement pods. Given only one comment to analyze, the fakeness assessment is tentative—moderately suspicious because of the generic form, but far from conclusive. For advertising decisions, this single emoji comment should be treated as a weak signal. Recommended next steps before purchase: review a larger sample of comments across recent posts (look for substantive comments, diversity of commenters, account ages and bios, reply threads), compare comments-to-likes ratio, and check for patterns of repeated short/generic comments from many accounts. If many comments are similar low-effort emojis, downgrade authenticity and caution on ad spend; if most comments are substantive and from varied, realistic profiles, confidence in the influencer increases." }