Job: @beauteactive

Text: Larbin

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Negative / insulting", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express dislike or attack the poster (trolling or personal insult)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: \"Larbin\" (Russian for \"lackey/toady\"), a short insulting remark. This is a clear negative sentiment aimed at the poster. The tone and single-word form suggest a human troll or dissatisfied user rather than a polished promotional or bot-like comment; therefore fakeness is assessed low (15/100) but with moderate uncertainty because the sample size is one (confidence 40/100). Because there is only one negative comment, it is insufficient evidence to judge overall audience quality or influencer authenticity. For advertising feasibility this single hostile comment should be treated as noise unless similar comments are common across posts. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check like-to-comment ratios, follower growth patterns, and look for repetitive phrasing (a sign of bots) or coordinated negativity. With current data, overall suitability for advertising is neutral-to-slightly-negative (45/100) with low confidence (30/100)." }

Text: ahah j’adore 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction / casual engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval (emotional reaction). Low-information engagement that increases visible activity but doesn't indicate purchase intent or detailed interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"ahah j’adore 😂\" reads as a brief, positive emotional reaction (laugh + 'I love it'). This is characteristic of a genuine follower expressing amusement or appreciation, but it is low-effort and provides little signal about real purchase intent or deep audience interest. With only one short comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality for advertising decisions. Signs that would raise concern (not present here) include many generic/templated comments, repeated phrases from different accounts, emoji-only comments en masse, or accounts with no profile information. To make an informed ad-feasibility decision, evaluate additional signals: comment volume and diversity, account follower-to-engagement ratios, commenter profile quality (age, activity, real photos), temporal patterns (sudden spikes), ratio of meaningful/conversational comments, and likes per post. Based on this lone comment, fakeness appears low but the assessment confidence is limited; overall suitability for advertising is uncertain and likely below average until a larger sample of comments and account metrics are reviewed." }

Text: @youcefkanouni moi à chaque sortie 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Tagging/reply with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Personal, humorous reaction to the post; tags another user to share the joke and signal relatability/social connection (social proof)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“@youcefkanouni moi à chaque sortie 😂😂”) reads as a genuine, casual user reaction: it tags a friend, expresses amusement with laughing emojis, and says the poster’s situation is relatable for the commenter. There are no hallmarks of common fake-comment patterns (generic praise, sales language, repeated phrases, emojis-only from empty accounts). However, the sample is extremely small (one comment), so confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility this single comment suggests authentic audience interaction at the micro-level but gives no evidence about overall engagement rate, audience quality, commenter account authenticity, diversity of responses, or the presence of inorganic comments. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, followers, posting history), comment timing, like-to-comment ratio, and whether comments are repetitive or from obviously bot-like accounts before making an ad-buy decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive reaction; superficial engagement that increases visible activity but carries little purchase-intent information." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of five laughing emojis. Emoji-only comments are common and can be either genuine short reactions or low-effort/bot-driven engagement; they provide very low signal about audience interest in products or propensity to buy. Given the lack of contextual data (commenter profile, timing, repetition, replies, likes on the comment, other comments) the assessment is uncertain. For influencer advertising decisions, this single emoji comment is insufficient evidence of authentic, purchase-intent engagement—recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments and commenter profiles, comment diversity, recurring identical comments across posts, comment-to-follower ratio, and temporal patterns before proceeding." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Sarcastic/humorous engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Light-hearted remark expressing sympathy or teasing about pay; aimed at engaging the poster and signaling familiarity. Not promotional and not a call-to-action." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment analysis: The message 'J’espère que t’as au moins 70% de la paie mdr' reads as a genuine, informal follower remark — jokingly hoping the poster received at least 70% of their salary. Tone is casual/sarcastic ('mdr' = 'lol'), showing familiarity and conversational engagement rather than scripted promotion. Low signs of automation or coordinated inauthenticity (short, context-specific, uses colloquial language). With only one comment, sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall audience quality or bot presence. For advertising feasibility: this comment indicates organic, personal interaction but provides no purchase intent, brand interest, or influencer-driven conversion signal. I recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, overall engagement rate, follower growth patterns, and other signals (repeated phrasing, comment timing, follower accounts) before making an advertising buy decision." }

Text: Exploitage !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 75, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short/one-word (likely spam or bot)", "count": 1, "purpose": "attention-getting, possibly promotional or automated; not substantive engagement with post content" } ], "interpretation": "There is a single short comment, 'Exploitage !', which contains an unusual/ambiguous token and no context. This pattern (one-word, punctuation, no conversation) commonly corresponds to low-quality engagement: bots, spam accounts, or opportunistic brand/keyword mentions rather than genuine audience interaction. With only this comment available it's not possible to definitively label it as fake, but the characteristics raise suspicion (hence a relatively high fakeness score with moderate confidence). For ad-buy decisions this is a weak signal of authentic community engagement — I recommend further checks (comment volume and diversity across multiple posts, commenter account age and follower/following ratio, timing patterns, and whether similar comments repeat across many posts) before committing budget. Based on current evidence, the post shows low-quality engagement and would not strongly support influencer ROI without a deeper audit." }

Text: C’est ou ?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question - location inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks information about where the photo/video was taken; indicates genuine curiosity/interest" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided, \"C’est ou ?\" (French for \"Where is it?\"), looks like a genuine, short location inquiry from a viewer. It reads as natural engagement rather than a promotional or spammy message. However, one comment is insufficient to assess the overall comment quality or authenticity of the account’s audience. Low volume and lack of diverse comment content make it hard to verify healthy organic engagement; this reduces confidence for advertising purchase decisions. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, the like-to-follower ratio, timing and repetitiveness of comments, language distribution, and follower authenticity metrics before deciding. Current assessment: isolated genuine-seeming engagement but not enough evidence to recommend purchase." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement and social signaling rather than substantive feedback or endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "All available data: a single comment consisting of three laughing emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are low-information: they indicate some level of audience reaction but do not provide substantive engagement (no mention of product, no questions, no testimonial). Such comments can be from genuine followers reacting, or from low-effort bot/farm activity; given the brevity and lack of account/context, the probability of being fake is moderate. For advertiser decision-making this comment is a weak positive signal — it shows attention but not meaningful interest or purchase intent. Recommendation: request more data (full comment set, commenter profiles, comment diversity, comment timestamps, likes-to-comments ratio, follower quality) before using this influencer for targeted ad spend. Limitations: single comment sample, no metadata (user account age/followers), and no post context were provided, so assessments have moderate uncertainty." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "observational/critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Pointing out a detail in the content (mentions the third person filming), likely to highlight an anomaly or prompt discussion about production." }, { "type": "engagement/question", "count": 1, "purpose": "Invites reaction or conversation from other viewers about the video setup; increases visible engagement without commercial intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('On en parle de la troisième personne qui filme la vidéo') appears organic and spontaneous rather than promotional or bot-like. It serves as an observational prompt that draws attention to the production of the content and invites discussion. This indicates an attentive real viewer who notices behind-the-scenes details, which is a positive signal for perceived authenticity. However, this is only one comment — insufficient to judge overall audience quality or fakeness for ad buy decisions. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample (ideally 100+ comments), check commenter profiles (recent activity, follower counts, comment patterns), comment likes, and distribution of comment types (praise, questions, spam) before making advertising commitments." }

Text: Maintenant je veux voir la vidéo moi 😂👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Engagement — anticipation/request", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses interest in seeing follow-up content (asks creator to post the video), encourages publication and signals viewer intent/expectation." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (French: \"Maintenant je veux voir la vidéo moi 😂👏\") reads as a short, informal, emoji-rich user reaction expressing eagerness to see a video. Tone and content suggest a real human follower rather than a generic bot template: it contains context-specific desire, colloquial phrasing and reaction emojis. Fakeness likelihood is low but confidence is limited because only one comment is provided. For influencer ad-buy decisions this isolated comment is a weak signal: it shows at least some engaged followers but is insufficient to assess overall authenticity, comment quality, or sustained audience interest. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments (50–200), check commenter profiles for real accounts vs mass-generated ones, review comment timing patterns, and compute meaningful-comment ratio and engagement rate before making a buying decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "observation / meta-commentary", "count": 1, "purpose": "Pointing out layers of filming (behind‑the‑scenes observation), likely humorous or ironic commentary about production rather than direct engagement with content or promotion." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (French: \"Je pense surtout à la personne qui filme la deuxième personne qui filme l’autre influenceuse\" — \"I'm mostly thinking about the person filming the second person who is filming the other influencer\") is a likely genuine, casual, meta observation with a humorous/ironic tone. It does not appear spammy or promotional and suggests an attentive, organic viewer noticing production dynamics. However, with only one comment available, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience quality or engagement rates. For an advertising buy decision you should request more data: total comment volume, like-to-follower ratio, comment diversity, timing of comments, follower authenticity checks, and engagement trends across several posts. Based on this single comment the signal is mildly positive for authenticity but inconclusive for advertising suitability." }

Text: 💩💩💩

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative reaction (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express dislike, criticism or trolling; short negative feedback with no constructive content" } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment consisting of three poop emojis. This is a clear negative reaction but provides no context or constructive critique. With only one comment, sample size is extremely small and not representative of broader audience sentiment. The comment could be genuine (an annoyed follower or troll) or a low-effort spam/bot reaction; therefore the fakeness assessment is uncertain. For influencer advertising feasibility this comment is a weak signal: low comment volume and a negative, non-specific comment reduce confidence in positive audience engagement but are insufficient alone to disqualify the influencer. Recommended next steps: review number of likes, comment-to-follower ratio across multiple posts, account follower quality (followers' profiles, activity), sentiment distribution across other recent posts, and presence of repeat negative commenters before making a buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Critical / Negative", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express dissatisfaction with the influencer's tone/behaviour (calls out a 'showy' or 'look-at-me' attitude); signals an authentic follower opinion and potential reputational friction for brands." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (French: \"Je n'aime pas ce côté du : << m'as-tu vu ? >>\") reads as a genuine, mild-to-moderate critical reaction: the commenter dislikes a perceived 'show-off' element. Linguistic cues and phrasing indicate a real human response rather than a bot or spam message, so fakeness is low. However, this is only one datapoint — it flags possible audience sensitivity to tone/authenticity that could matter for brand alignment. For ad-purchase decisions: an isolated negative comment is not decisive but suggests you should (1) analyze a larger sample of comments for recurring negative themes or identical phrasing (which could indicate coordinated activity), (2) check overall sentiment distribution, like-to-comment ratio, and follower quality, and (3) assess whether the influencer's style matches the brand's desired image. Recommendation: proceed cautiously — request broader comment/sentiment data before finalizing buy. Confidence in the above judgments is limited by the tiny sample size." }

Text: Trop drôle

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/Emotional Reaction (short praise)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement and approval; basic engagement to show the content is entertaining. Low information content and low signal of meaningful audience connection on its own." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Trop drôle' — 'So funny') is available, which limits reliable inference. This comment is typical of genuine, spontaneous audience reaction but could also be produced by low-effort engagement (bots or users leaving generic praise). Fakeness is assessed as low-to-moderate risk (score 20) because the phrasing is natural and language-specific, but confidence is limited given the tiny sample (confidence 40). For advertising feasibility, the evidence is insufficient: a neutral overall score (50) reflects that one positive short comment suggests some audience enjoyment but provides no information on follower quality, reach, conversion potential, or comment authenticity across the account. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter accounts for realism (profile pictures, post history, follower/following ratios), measure likes, engagement rate over many posts, timing patterns, and comment diversity before making ad-buy decisions." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction and lightweight engagement; low informational or commercial value." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment consists only of repeated laughing emojis (😂😂😂😂😂😂). This is a low-information, high-signal engagement marker: it shows the post elicited amusement but provides no purchase intent, product feedback, or substantive discussion. Such emoji-only comments can be authentic (real followers reacting quickly) but are also commonly produced by low-effort accounts or engagement farms to inflate visible engagement. Given only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. The moderate fakeness score reflects the possibility of both genuine and low-effort/bot origin; confidence is low because there is insufficient data. For advertising decisions, this single emoji comment is weak evidence of meaningful audience interest — recommend analyzing a larger, time-sampled set of comments and commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), comment diversity (substantive vs emoji vs repeated text), like-to-comment ratios, and occurrence of repeated comments across posts before progressing with a purchase." }

Text: 😂😂😂trop bien

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction (emoji + brief praise)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enjoyment/approval and provide lightweight engagement/social proof; low informational content and low effort" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment '😂😂😂trop bien' is a brief, emoji-heavy positive reaction ('so good' in French) that functions primarily as lightweight engagement and social proof. It is not substantive feedback and could be either an authentic quick response from a follower or a generic low-effort comment; current assessment leans toward likely genuine but not strongly informative (fakeness_score 20, confidence 60). Because only one comment is available, this sample is insufficient to judge the overall authenticity or audience quality for advertising decisions. Recommended additional checks before purchase: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for diversity and depth, inspect commenter profiles for real follower counts and activity, check timing patterns (bursts vs organic spread), compare like-to-comment ratios, and review content consistency across posts. Based on the single comment, the post provides minimal actionable validation for ad spend (overall_score 35, confidence 50)." }

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": 85, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic reaction / viewer engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses genuine amusement and repeated attention to the content; offers a specific, contextual reaction (watched 20x, joked about 'microscope'); signals positive interest and entertainability of the post." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears authentic and human: informal French, emojis, a specific anecdote (watched it ~20 times, tried to look under a 'microscope') and playful language all point to a real viewer reaction rather than a templated or promotional bot reply. Fakeness is low (around 10/100) with fairly high confidence because the comment contains non-generic detail and natural phrasing.\n\nHowever, this is only one comment — a very small sample. While its quality is good for advertising (engaged, positive, content-specific), the quantity is insufficient to judge overall audience engagement or the influencer's reach/reliability. For an ad buy decision you should corroborate with more data: total comment volume, like-to-follower ratio, distribution of unique commenters, timing patterns, follower authenticity checks, and demographic fit.\n\nRecommendation: treat this as a positive signal about content resonance but require a broader engagement audit before committing to advertising spend." }

Text: Non mais je suis fan fan fan 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive fan praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/affection and show support for the influencer" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Non mais je suis fan fan fan 😍') reads as a short, enthusiastic fan endorsement and is likely genuine low-effort engagement rather than a scripted promotional or spammy message. Signals supporting authenticity: use of language specific to fandom (repetition 'fan fan fan') and an emoji conveying excitement. Limitations: one comment is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Possibilities that reduce confidence: short generic praise can be mimicked by inorganic accounts or engagement pods. For advertising feasibility this single data point is weak — it indicates at least some engaged followers, but you need a larger sample (volume and variety of comments, commenter account checks, timing, engagement rates) before making a buying decision." }

Text: 😂😂 Excellent

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji + short praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/positive reaction; low-effort engagement that signals positivity to the algorithm but offers no substantive endorsement or detail." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single, very short comment ('😂😂 Excellent') is available. This is a low-information, low-effort engagement: positive in tone but generic. Such comments are common from both real users (quick reactions) and from engagement pods or low-quality/fake accounts, so the risk of inauthenticity is non-trivial (hence a moderate fakeness score). From an advertising feasibility perspective this comment does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, product-specific endorsement, or conversational depth, so it provides limited evidence of a valuable, engaged audience. Confidence in these judgments is limited because the sample size is one; additional data (number and variety of comments, commenter profile quality, comment timestamps, likes on comments, follower-to-engagement ratios) is needed to reach a firmer conclusion." }

Text: Thanks for laugh sister 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive reaction / Engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and support (social affirmation), increases visible engagement with the post." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment ('Thanks for laugh sister 😂😂') reads as a brief, positive reaction from a follower — likely organic. It uses casual phrasing and emojis; the slight grammatical oddity ('Thanks for laugh') suggests either informal speech or a non‑native English speaker rather than an obvious bot. Fakeness risk is low but not zero because short emoji comments are also commonly used in low-effort engagement farms; however, with only one comment available the sample is far too small to draw strong conclusions. For advertising-feasibility: the comment signals some audience warmth but provides no evidence of meaningful, engaged or purchase-ready followers. Overall score is low (30) reflecting insufficient comment volume and depth to justify relying on this post alone for ad decisions. Recommendation: analyze a larger set of comments, overall engagement rate (likes vs. follower count), comment diversity, follower authenticity, and conversion indicators before committing to ad spend." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement / quick positive reaction; low-effort engagement that increases visible activity but provides no product interest, endorsement, or substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The only comment provided is a short emoji string (\"😂😂😂\"). Emoji-only comments are low-information: they can be genuine, casual responses from real followers or they can be produced by bots/engagement pods to inflate apparent activity. Given a single, context-free emoji comment, there is insufficient evidence of real, purchase-intent engagement. For influencer advertising decisions this is a weak signal — it shows momentary amusement but no endorsement, question, or intent to buy. I therefore rate the comment set as moderately likely to include inauthentic activity (fakeness score 65) and rate the overall ad-feasibility of the post low (30). Confidence in these judgments is limited because the sample size is one comment; to improve accuracy, review a larger comment sample across multiple posts, inspect commenter account quality (profile completeness, followers, posting history), check timing patterns (comment spikes), compare like-to-comment ratios, and look for substantive comments indicating interest or purchase behavior." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses simple positive reaction/affinity. Low informational value — often used by genuine followers as a quick like, but also commonly produced by bots or engagement pods as low-effort engagement." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment consisting of a heart emoji. This is a low-effort, low-signal interaction: it indicates positive sentiment but provides no evidence of meaningful audience interest, intent to purchase, or authentic conversation. Such comments are common from real followers but are also frequently generated by bots or engagement networks, so the likelihood of inauthenticity is moderate (fakeness score 60) and confidence in that judgment is low due to the extremely small sample. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is insufficient to demonstrate an engaged or authentic audience (overall score 30). Before purchasing ads or partnerships, request more data: number of comments across multiple posts, variety and substance of comments, commenter profiles and follower counts, like-to-comment ratios, temporal patterns (sudden bursts), and audience demographics to better assess authenticity and ROI potential." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 0, "fakeness_confidence": 0, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 0, "comment_types": [ { "type": "no_comments_provided", "count": 0, "purpose": "No comments were supplied to analyze; cannot classify comment types or purposes." } ], "interpretation": "No comments were provided in the request, so I cannot analyze or rate the fakeness of comments or give an overall assessment. To perform the requested influencer-comment analysis I need the actual comments (or a screenshot / export). When you supply the comments I will: 1) classify comment types (genuine engagement: questions, detailed praise, critiques; superficial: single-word praise, emojis; promotional: affiliate links, discount requests; spam/bot: repetitive text, unrelated links, usernames; community replies: threaded conversations), 2) identify likely purposes (praise, inquiry, purchase intent, spam, self-promotion, bot amplification), 3) score fakeness based on heuristics (repetition, generic phrasing, high emoji-to-text ratio, timing patterns, account metadata overlap), 4) give a confidence score based on sample size and available metadata, and 5) provide an overall recommendation about ad-purchase feasibility (audience authenticity, engagement quality, conversion indicators). Please paste the comments or provide a link/screenshot and any available metadata (post date, follower count, average engagement) and I will run the analysis." }

Text: The first one though 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Humorous/reactionary comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and show preference for the 'first' item; light, conversational engagement using emoji to convey tone." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment ('The first one though 😂') is short, uses natural colloquial phrasing and an emoji, and reads like an authentic human reaction rather than a templated or promotional bot message. Fakeness risk is low for this comment specifically, but confidence is limited because this is only one data point. For influencer ad-buy decisions, this isolated comment provides minimal evidence about overall audience quality or engagement authenticity. Recommended next steps: analyze the full comment set (volume, diversity, timestamps), inspect commenter accounts for real profiles vs. bots, calculate engagement rate relative to follower count, and review likes/replies distribution. Based on the single available comment, the post shows a small sign of genuine engagement but is insufficient to confidently recommend ad spend." }

Text: 👣😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only (low-effort)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Conveys positive sentiment/admiration or casual acknowledgement; could be genuine fan engagement or generic/automated interaction depending on wider comment patterns." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"👣😍\". This is an emoji-only, low-effort positive reaction. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they frequently come from real followers expressing appreciation, but the same style is also common in bot farms or mass-engagement campaigns. With one comment there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or the influencer's audience quality. The middling fakeness score reflects this ambiguity; low confidence scores reflect very limited input. For a reliable advertising-feasibility decision you should analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts and examine commenter accounts (account age, follower counts, profile photos, repetition of identical comments/emojis across posts, timing patterns) and compute engagement rate and audience demographics. Based on the single comment alone, I would not recommend making an advertising purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product inquiry / information request", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask for the product reference (jeans) to enable purchase; indicates purchase intent or genuine interest in the item shown." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment — \"Quelle est la réf du jean svp ? :)\" — reads as a natural, specific question from a follower wanting product details. It lacks hallmarks of bot/fake comments (no generic praise, no repeated hashtags or short templated text, natural language and polite emoji). That supports a low fakeness score. However, one comment is a very limited sample: you cannot reliably judge overall audience quality or authenticity from this alone. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment is a positive signal (shows product interest), but insufficient evidence of consistent real engagement or conversion potential. Recommended next checks: analyze a larger set of recent comments for patterns (repetition, generic phrases), timing and diversity of commenters, engagement rate relative to follower count, commenter profile authenticity, and whether the influencer responds with product info or links. Based on the single comment, ad-feasibility is moderate (score ~45) but confidence is low–moderate due to insufficient data." }

Text: First one kinda ate tho🔥😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise/Compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction to specific element of the post (the 'first one'); provides social proof and engagement through casual/slang language and emojis." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('First one kinda ate tho🔥😂') reads as an authentic, informal compliment: it references a specific item ('first one'), uses slang ('ate' meaning performed well) and expressive emojis, and lacks hallmarks of templated or promotional bot comments. With only one comment available, sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall audience quality or prevalence of fake engagement. The low fakeness score reflects linguistic specificity and natural tone, but confidence is limited because there is no broader comment volume, timing, or account metadata to analyze. For advertising decisions, this isolated positive comment is encouraging but insufficient on its own—recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, commenter account histories, overall engagement rate, and comment timestamps to assess authenticity and audience fit before purchasing ads." }

Text: 🦶🏼👅

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (sexual/suggestive)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort engagement — appears to be a suggestive/sexual reaction (foot + tongue). Could be genuine flirtatious/attention-seeking from a real user, trolling, or a generic bot/spam comment intended to inflate visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Есть только один комментарий — набор эмодзи (🦶🏼👅). Это даёт очень ограниченную информацию. Эмодзи указывают на сексуально-провокационный подтекст и не содержат контекста или обсуждения поста, поэтому их ценность как показателя живой, релевантной аудитории низкая. Эмодзи‑только комментарии часто встречаются у ботов/ботоподобных аккаунтов, но также могут быть и от реальных подписчиков/троллей. Из одного примера нельзя надёжно судить об аутентичности аудитории — оценка поддельности средняя (60) с низкой уверенностью (35%). Для принятия решения о покупке рекламы рекомендую дополнительно проверить: профайл автора комментария (активность, фото, подписки/подписчики), распределение и разнообразие комментариев под другими публикациями, частые повторяющиеся/скопированные комментарии, временные паттерны (всплески за короткий промежуток), общий ER и соотношение лайков/комментариев. На текущих данных риск вложений в рекламу выше среднего — общий скор 30/100 (уверенность 40%)." }

Text: Hahaha the first one 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "reactive/expressive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Reaction to post (laughter/entertainment), signaling positive engagement and possibly encouraging conversation" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Hahaha the first one 😂' appears to be a genuine, informal reaction to content (likely the first image or joke in a carousel). It indicates positive sentiment and lightweight engagement rather than a promotional or bot-like message. However, one short emoji-laden comment is insufficient evidence to judge overall authenticity or audience quality. The fakeness score is low (15) because the phrasing is natural, but confidence is limited (40) given the tiny sample. For advertising decisions, this single comment is not enough — request more comments, commenter profiles, overall engagement rate, like counts, follower demographics, and timing patterns before buying ads. Consider running deeper checks (commenter account age, activity, follower/following ratios, repeated generic comments) to raise confidence." }

Text: I watched this so many times

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive repeat-viewer / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enjoyment and repeated consumption of the content — serves as social proof that the post is engaging and watchable multiple times." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"I watched this so many times\" reads as a natural, positive reaction and likely indicates real viewer engagement rather than obvious bot/spam behavior. It is short and low-effort but specific enough (mentions repeat viewing) to act as mild social proof. However, this is only one comment; the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. The fakeness score is low (15) but with moderate uncertainty because similar short phrases can be used by both real users and automated engagement services. For advertising feasibility: the comment is a small positive signal but insufficient alone to recommend investment — overall score 40 reflects limited evidence. Recommended next steps before purchasing ad/influencer placement: review a larger set of comments (volume, timestamps, variety), check commenter profiles for real follower counts and posting history, measure likes/replies ratio, look at saves/shares and view metrics, and evaluate overall engagement rate relative to the influencer's follower count." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction. Low informational value; serves as lightweight engagement (could be genuine casual response or generic/bot-generated)." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment consisting of repeated laughing emojis. Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine quick reactions, but they are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or engagement farms. With only this one low-content comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge audience quality or authenticity. For advertising feasibility this is weak: such comments provide little social proof, limited actionable feedback, and raise mild suspicion of low-effort engagement. Recommended next steps before buying ads: review a larger sample of recent comments for diversity and substance, check like-to-follower ratio, run a follower authenticity audit, and look for conversational replies or questions from followers. If most comments resemble this emoji-only pattern, reduce the influencer’s value for conversion-driven campaigns; if most comments are substantive, this single emoji is less concerning." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 38, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "direct_mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "To draw another user into the conversation or show the post to a friend (@estel_lau)." }, { "type": "humorous/personal_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Light-hearted personal response (joke about preferring to stay with their koala), indicating familiarity or casual engagement rather than promotion." }, { "type": "emoji_use", "count": 1, "purpose": "Adds tone/emotion (koala and laughing emoji) to reinforce playful intent and friendliness." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is in French, tags another account, and uses humour and emojis. Its language and structure appear organic and conversational rather than scripted or promotional, so likelihood of being fake or bot-generated is low (fakeness_score 12). However, this is only one comment: engagement volume is minimal and the comment provides no endorsement or purchase intent. For advertising feasibility this suggests real, casual follower interaction but insufficient scale or commercial signal to rely on alone. Recommendation: review a larger sample of recent comments, total comment/like rates, follower quality, and presence of multiple genuine endorsements before deciding to purchase advertising. Overall suitability for ads from this comment sample is limited (overall_score 38) with moderate confidence due to the very small sample size." }

Text: @ma_rouxxxx

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user_mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging another account — likely to notify/invite a friend to view the post or to drive extra engagement; could also be spam or part of an engagement pod." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is a bare user mention (@ma_rouxxxx). This comment provides very little signal about genuine audience interest or sentiment. A lone tag is ambiguous: it can be an organic behavior (someone calling a friend) or inorganic (spammy tags, automated bot comments, or coordinated engagement). Because there is no conversational content, no likes on the comment, no additional distinct commenters, and no context, the probability of non-organic behavior is elevated but uncertain. For advertising decisions this is weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommendation: request the full recent comment set, commenter profiles (followers, activity), engagement rates (likes, saves, reach), and growth history before committing ad spend. If multiple comments are similarly low-effort tags or come from accounts with minimal followers, treat overall engagement as likely inflated or low-quality." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic_user_comment - humorous/sarcastic", "count": 1, "purpose": "express opinion/critique and engage with the post (humor/sarcasm); not promotional or spam" } ], "interpretation": "There is a single visible comment: a short, on-topic, humorous/sarcastic critique in French ('Le pire c’est de dire (merci de garder les enfants) alors que c’est juste normal 😂'). It reads as natural (colloquial phrasing, emoji, context-specific remark), so likelihood of being fake/bot-generated is low. However the sample size is extremely small (one comment), so this is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions about overall comment authenticity for the account. For advertising feasibility: this comment is a positive signal (real audience engagement, relatable reaction), but it is insufficient alone. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments across multiple recent posts (look for repetition of phrases, timing patterns, short generic replies like 'Nice' or repeated emojis, account age/follower overlap) and compute engagement metrics (comment-to-follower ratio, like-to-follower ratio, diversity/quality of comments). Without that broader context, treat this as a modestly positive indicator but with low confidence." }

Text: La vrai vie 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive/compliment with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/appreciation and provide social endorsement; signals positive sentiment toward the post." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'La vrai vie 😍' reads as a brief, positive, likely organic reaction. It contains a minor grammatical slip ('vrai' vs. 'vraie') and a natural emoji, which are common in authentic user replies and less typical of templated bot comments or promotional spam. There is no promotional language, no tags or links, and no repetitive phrasing to suggest coordination. However, this is only one data point — you cannot assess overall comment authenticity or audience quality from a single short comment. For ad-buy decisions, treat this as weak positive signal (authentic engagement present) but request a larger sample: top 50–100 comments, commenter account audits (activity, follower/following ratios, posting history), timestamps (to detect inorganic bursts), and comment-to-like ratios. Based on this single comment, the comments look low-fake, but confidence is moderate due to the tiny sample size." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Reaction/engagement — expresses amusement or approval without substantive content; low informational value. Could be genuine casual follower response or low-effort/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three laughing emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). This is a low-effort, emoji-only reaction that confirms some engagement but provides no detail on sentiment beyond amusement. Emoji-only comments are common among real followers but are also the easiest type of engagement for bots or purchased interaction to produce. With only one comment there is insufficient evidence to reliably judge authenticity or audience quality. Given the low informational value and very small sample size, the comments on this post are not a strong positive signal for advertising purchase — they neither demonstrate meaningful audience interest nor conversational community. Recommendation: collect more data (multiple posts, comment diversity, commenter profile checks, timestamps, engagement-to-follower ratio, repeated patterns) before making an ad-buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Tagged friend + emotive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/relatability and draw a friend’s attention to the post (social sharing); increases visible engagement via tagging and emojis." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (@clem_mamancomblee ptdr trop nous ça !! 😆🤣) is informal, uses slang, emojis and a tag — typical of genuine audience reactions: the commenter finds the content relatable/funny and is sharing it with a friend. These features (personal tag, casual language, context-specific phrase) lower the likelihood of it being fake. However, this is only one data point: you cannot reliably judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality from a single comment. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment is mildly positive (shows organic engagement and relatability) but insufficient alone. Recommended next steps: review total comment volume, variety of comments, timing patterns, repeated/generic comments, commenter account quality (age, followers, activity), and like-to-comment ratios before buying advertising. If many comments show similar personal language and tagging patterns, that's supportive; if many are short/repetitive or from low-quality accounts, fakeness risk rises." }

Text: @teiiha t’es dispo quand ? 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal mention / conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Directly addressing another user (@teiiha) to ask about availability — a casual, social interaction likely between acquaintances or followers rather than a promotional/marketing comment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is short, colloquial French with an emoji (\"t’es dispo quand ? 😂\" — \"when are you available?\") and directly mentions another handle. That pattern is typical of genuine interpersonal engagement (friends, acquaintances, or engaged followers) rather than bot-like or paid promotional comments, which tend to be generic, repetitive, or product-focused. Given only one comment as evidence, the sample is very limited: this specific comment appears authentic (low fakeness), and it gives a weakly positive signal for real audience interaction. For a reliable advertising-feasibility decision you should analyze a larger set of comments and other signals (comment diversity, timing, account follower overlap, engagement rate, recurring generic phrases, and commenter profile authenticity)." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation/positive reaction; low-effort engagement to boost visible metrics or signal approval" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a heart emoji — a generic positive, low-effort engagement. By itself it provides very little signal about audience quality or authenticity: hearts are commonly left by real followers but are also frequently generated by bots or by reciprocal/engagement-exchange activity. Given only this data point, the chance of inauthenticity is moderate (estimated fakeness 35/100) but with limited confidence. For advertising decisions this comment is weak evidence; you should request more data (full comment sample across multiple recent posts, commenter account audits, engagement rate, likes vs meaningful comments, audience demographics, reach/impressions). If most comments on the influencer’s posts are similarly one-word or emoji reactions, that suggests low-quality engagement and lowers suitability for paid campaigns. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger comment set, profile commenters (age, follower counts, activity), and compute comment-to-like ratio and proportion of substantive comments before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (applause)", "count": 1, "purpose": "short positive reaction / approval; increases visible engagement. Could be genuine praise, participation in an engagement pod, or automated/bot activity." } ], "interpretation": "The sample contains a single comment: \"👏👏\". Emoji‑only applause is common and ambiguous — it often represents genuine quick approval, but it is also frequently produced by engagement pods or low-effort bot accounts to inflate engagement metrics. With only one short comment, there is insufficient evidence to strongly judge authenticity or audience quality. I assess a moderate probability of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 40) but with low confidence (30) because of the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility I give a neutral overall score (50) with low confidence (25). To improve assessment, collect a larger comment sample and examine commenter accounts (profile completeness, follower/following ratio, posting history), timing patterns, repetition of identical comments, and ratio of substantive comments to emoji/generic ones." }

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": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "organic/personal anecdote with humor", "count": 1, "purpose": "Engage with the post/author by sharing a light-hearted personal remark; build rapport and personality rather than promote or solicit." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a casual, humorous personal remark in French: \"Non ça va je suis raisonnables sauf une fois et c'était la faute d'un avion😉🙂\". It reads as an authentic, conversational reply (informal language, emojis, slight grammatical slip). There are no signs of spam, promotional language, or bot-like patterns. Given only one comment, sample size is extremely limited for judging the influencer's audience quality. For advertising feasibility: this comment suggests real follower engagement of a personal nature, which is positive, but a single anecdotal comment is insufficient to conclude consistent genuine interaction or broad reach. Recommend reviewing a larger set of comments (variety, volume, timing, language diversity), engagement rates, and follower quality before making an ad purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reactions", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express emotion/emphasis; quick, informal positive or approving reaction to the post content." }, { "type": "User mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct the comment to or reference another account (@cha_chrlne), indicating a conversational or relational context." }, { "type": "Negative/taunt toward named individuals", "count": 1, "purpose": "State lack of sympathy for specific people (Patrick and Woogun) — could be teasing, antagonistic, or in-group banter." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears organic and conversational: it tags another user, uses multiple emoji for emphasis, and expresses a targeted negative sentiment toward two named individuals. There are no obvious bot/spam signals (no generic high-effort praise, no links, no repeated templated copy). The language mix (French + English phrase) and emoji pattern are typical of real human engagement. However, the content indicates potential controversy or negative discussion around named parties, which could affect brand safety depending on context. Because this analysis is based on one comment only, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall engagement authenticity or audience sentiment. Recommended next steps: sample a larger set of comments, check commenter profiles for follower counts/activity, examine timing patterns, and measure sentiment distribution before finalizing an advertising decision. Given the limited data, exercise caution — there is a mild signal of authentic, possibly contentious audience engagement rather than promotional/bot activity." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product inquiry / shopping intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for the product reference (which dress/model), indicating intent to identify or purchase the item." }, { "type": "Compliment / positive engagement (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Uses a heart-eyes emoji to show admiration and positive sentiment toward the item/person, increasing perceived appeal." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears genuine: it asks a specific question about 'Caroline's' dress and includes a positive emoji. Specificity (requesting a reference) and absence of generic promotional language suggest an actual follower interested in buying or learning where to get the dress, not a bot or paid promotional comment. Fakeness is therefore low (≈10). However, this is only one comment — the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall comment quality or audience authenticity. For advertising feasibility, this comment is a positive signal (shows shopping intent and positive sentiment) but is insufficient alone. I recommend analyzing a larger set of recent comments, reply rates, like-to-follower ratio, recurring product inquiry patterns, and follower authenticity (ghost accounts, follower growth spikes) before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: Ah ouai !!!! 🤣 @maariondrs

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Reaction + Tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/affirmation and tag another account to draw their attention to the post (referral/sharing)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ah ouai !!!! 🤣 @maariondrs') is short, positive/amused and includes a direct user tag. This pattern is typical of organic engagement where a follower reacts and pulls a friend into the conversation. It does not show signs of bot-like behavior (no generic praise, repeated phrases, or promotional links), so fakeness is low. However, because there is only one comment provided, the sample size is too small to judge overall comment authenticity or engagement quality for advertising decisions. For ad-feasibility: this lone comment suggests some real, socially-driven interaction (a small referral), but overall engagement volume and diversity appear minimal — not enough evidence of strong community engagement or influence. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check like/comment ratios, follower authenticity metrics, comment timestamps and diversity of commenters before committing to advertising." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or light positive engagement (passive acknowledgement of the post)" } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment: three '😂' emojis. This is an emoji-only reaction, which typically signals amusement or a positive, low-effort engagement. Emoji reactions are common from genuine followers but are also used by bots/engagement farms, so the likelihood of being fake is low-to-moderate (fakeness score 15/100) with limited confidence. The sample size (one short comment) is too small to draw meaningful conclusions about overall audience authenticity or influencer suitability for advertising. The available evidence suggests minimal conversational depth and social proof — not enough to justify a high advertising confidence. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments across multiple posts, check follower quality and engagement rate, look for repetitive/comment-template patterns, timing of comments, and presence of substantive user interactions before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/affection (low-effort engagement). Functions as a simple positive signal to the poster and the algorithm; can also be produced by bots or engagement farms." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment consisting solely of two heart-eyes emojis (\"😍😍\"). This is a low-information, low-effort engagement signal: it indicates a positive reaction but provides no context, specificity, or meaningful audience feedback. Emoji-only comments are commonly left by genuine followers as quick reactions but are also frequently generated by bots or engagement services because they are easy to automate. Given only one comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge authenticity confidently; hence a moderately high fakeness score but low confidence in that assessment. For advertising decisions, this comment alone is not a strong indicator of an engaged, responsive audience or meaningful influencer influence. You should request a larger sample of comments (quantity, variety, language, timestamp patterns), look at like/engagement ratios, follower quality, comment diversity (questions, personal references, critiques), and recurrence of similar emoji-only comments to better assess authenticity and ad suitability." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/approval and increases visible engagement; low informational/content value. Such comments can come from genuine followers, casual viewers, or automated/engagement-for-hire accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided — a lone heart emoji. This is a generic positive reaction that signals engagement but provides no evidence of audience quality, intent to purchase, or meaningful conversation. Emoji-only comments are common among real followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort bots or paid engagement services; without additional context (commenter account profiles, follower counts, timing patterns, comment volume and diversity, likes per comment) it's not possible to confidently classify authenticity. Given the limited data, the fakeness score is set neutral (50) with low confidence. For advertising feasibility the single emoji is weak evidence of a receptive, high-value audience; therefore the overall suitability score is low-to-moderate (40) with low confidence. To improve assessment reliability, provide more comments and metadata (commenter handles, timestamps, follower counts, engagement rate, and proportion of substantive comments vs. generic ones)." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation/approval; low-information engagement that increases visible engagement but gives little evidence of genuine interest or purchase intent" } ], "interpretation": "The only provided comment is two heart emojis (❤️❤️). Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous: they can be quick genuine reactions from real followers or low-effort/bot-generated engagement. With a single short comment there is very low signal to assess authenticity or audience quality. This kind of comment helps overall visible engagement metrics but is a weak indicator of conversion potential. For an advertising purchase decision, rely on additional data: volume and diversity of comments, whether commenters are unique and have real-looking profiles, comment timing patterns, likes-to-comments ratio, and historical post performance. Based on this single emoji comment, I rate the comments as moderately likely to include low-effort or fake engagement (fakeness_score 60) but with limited confidence. Overall suitability for advertising is below average (overall_score 45) because comment quality is low-signal; confidence in that assessment is moderate. Recommended next steps: gather a larger sample of comments across multiple posts and profile-level metrics before finalizing an ad buy." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only applause + fire", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise/enthusiasm and provide visible engagement/social proof; low informational value. Could be a genuine quick reaction, a follower using shorthand, or low-effort engagement from an engagement pod/bot." } ], "interpretation": "The sole comment is a string of clapping emojis followed by a fire emoji — a typical low-effort positive reaction. Emoji-only comments signal approval and boost visible engagement but carry little qualitative information about audience intent or purchase intent. Such comments are common from real followers, but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or users incentivized to comment (low signal-to-noise). With only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. Current indicators: positive visible engagement but low informational depth and moderate risk of inorganic activity. For an ad-buy decision, I recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments (diversity of language/content), commenter profiles (follower counts, activity, account age), temporal patterns (many similar emoji comments in short time), and overall engagement ratios (likes vs meaningful comments). Based on this single comment, treat the engagement as weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience — further investigation required before committing budget." }

Text: C’est si beau 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive praise / emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Compliment/endorsement and lightweight engagement (social approval, signaling appreciation)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"C’est si beau 😍😍\" is a short, positive, French-language compliment with emoji. This type of comment commonly comes from real followers offering quick praise, but it is low information (no product-specific detail, no question, no tagging). Given only one comment to analyze, there is limited evidence either way: the natural language and localized phrasing slightly reduce the likelihood of it being an automated bot, but the generic nature and high use of emojis are also consistent with low-effort or inauthentic engagement. Fakeness is assessed as low-to-moderate (25) with moderate uncertainty (confidence 45). For advertising feasibility, this single comment provides weak support — it shows some positive sentiment but not enough depth or volume to indicate strong, engaged, purchase-intent followers. Overall suitability is therefore moderate (55) with limited confidence (40). Recommendation: request a larger sample of recent comments, engagement rate metrics (likes/comments per follower), and follower quality checks before making an advertising buy decision." }

Text: 🔥👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "low-effort emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express quick positive sentiment/enthusiasm and boost visible engagement; low informational value and commonly used by both genuine casual followers and bots" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a pair of emojis (fire + clap), which is a low-effort positive reaction. Such comments give almost no signal about real audience interest, purchase intent, or audience quality. They are commonly posted by casual followers as well as bot accounts programmed to leave generic emojis, so the likelihood of inauthenticity is moderate but uncertain. With only one short comment available, confidence in any authenticity assessment is low. For an advertising feasibility decision, this evidence is insufficient — recommend analyzing a larger sample of recent posts (comments, likes, engagement rate), looking for patterns of repetitive or templated comments, checking the profiles that leave comments (age, follower counts, activity), and comparing comment content across posts. Based on this single comment alone, the post provides limited value as a signal for ad purchase, hence a conservative overall score." }

Text: Bravoo👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / Generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/positive reaction (short praise + emoji). Serves to increase visible engagement and social proof; may be genuine follower support or low-effort/automated engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Single short comment \"Bravoo👏\" provides very limited signal. It is a generic positive reaction that could be from a genuine follower, an engagement pod member, or an automated/paid commenter — there is no contextual content, no conversation, and no account metadata to evaluate. Given only one comment, I rate probability of it being fake modest (30) with low-to-moderate confidence (40). For advertising decisions this comment alone is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommended next steps: examine many comments across multiple recent posts for repetition or identical phrasing, check commenter account quality (profile, followers, posting history), review like-to-comment ratios, comment timestamps (batching), and request influencer’s engagement analytics or third-party audit. If the majority of comments are similarly short/generic and from low-quality accounts, treat engagement as low value for ad placement; if comments are diverse, substantive, and from varied credible accounts, the inventory is more suitable. Overall assessment based solely on this comment is low-positive for ad feasibility (35) with low confidence (30)." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine product inquiry / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive feedback combined with a direct question about the product origin (seeking purchase info / recommendation). Signals real interest and possible purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is natural, specific and conversational — it praises the post and asks where the influencer's CamelBak comes from. This behaviour is typical of a real follower interested in the product, indicating authentic engagement and potential conversion interest. However, this is only one data point: you cannot generalize about the overall comment authenticity or engagement quality from a single comment. For advertising purchase decisions, obtain more context (number of comments, like-to-follow ratio, variety of commenters, timing, replies from influencer) to confirm sustained genuine interest and audience fit." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise the influencer and express intent to try the brand — functions as social proof and a potential conversion signal." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is short, informal, and specific (\"T’es tellement motivante !!\" + \"Il faut que je testes cette marque 😍\"), which suggests a real user expressing enthusiasm and intent to try the product. Linguistic cues (emoji, natural phrasing, minor typo) reduce the likelihood of an automated or scripted bot comment. However, this is only one data point: while it is positive for advertising (shows genuine interest and social proof), the sample size is insufficient to conclude broader audience authenticity or consistent engagement. For a reliable advertising decision, review a larger set of recent comments for repetition patterns, timing, commenter account quality (followers, activity), like-to-comment ratio, and behavior on past sponsored posts." }

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": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal action + praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Follower reports a concrete action inspired by the influencer (registered for a 13 km trail with 530m ascent) while thanking and encouraging the creator." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears authentic: it contains specific, personal details (distance and elevation, 'solo', excitement), natural language and emojis, and expresses genuine gratitude and enthusiasm. It is not a generic one-line praise or obvious promotional/bot text. As a signal for advertising feasibility, it is positive — it shows the influencer can motivate followers to take real-world actions relevant to trail-running or outdoor gear. However, this is only one data point: the sample size is too small to conclude broadly about the audience quality or overall engagement. Recommended next steps before purchase: check volume and diversity of similar comments, look for repeated/copy-paste comments, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity, review like-to-comment ratios and recent comment timestamps, and assess follower demographics to match the campaign." }

Text: Tu gères 🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short praise / emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive applause/engagement — quick compliment signaling approval or encouragement (community affirmation rather than informative feedback)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"Tu gères 🔥\" (French for \"You rock\"). This is a brief, generic positive reaction typical of organic follower engagement but equally easy to leave by casual or fake accounts. With one comment there is insufficient signal to judge authenticity or audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects that the content looks like a normal compliment, but confidence is low because of the tiny sample size and lack of profile/context data (commenter account age, follower count, comment timing, repetition across posts). For advertising feasibility this one comment is not meaningful: recommend analyzing a larger comment set, commenter profiles, like-to-comment ratios, comment diversity, reply threads, and longitudinal engagement before deciding. Additional checks: look for repeated short comments across many posts, unusually high comment counts with low profile interaction, many comments from accounts with no profile photos or few followers, and mismatch between follower count and engagement." }

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": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "advice/helpful", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide a practical troubleshooting tip for a noisy hydration bladder; community support and problem-solving." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a concise, specific, non-promotional troubleshooting tip in French — \"turn the bladder upside down and suck out the air\" — ending with a friendly emoji. Signals of authenticity: concrete, actionable instruction, natural phrasing, absence of links or calls-to-action, and an emotive cue (🤗). These characteristics make it very likely genuine rather than automated or purchased. Caveats: this analysis is based on one comment only; a larger sample of comments, account metadata (age, activity patterns), comment timing, and commenter profiles should be reviewed to confirm overall audience authenticity. For advertising feasibility: this comment type is positive (shows real user engagement and helpful community interaction), but the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the influencer's entire engagement quality or susceptibility to fake/comment-farming." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji / short reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive affirmation or appreciation (low-effort engagement). Conveys sentiment (likes/love) but provides no topical or purchase-intent signal; could be from a genuine follower or a bot/engagement farm." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of a heart emoji was provided. This is a positive but very low-information signal: it indicates some audience affection or approval but gives no insight into audience relevance, brand fit, or purchase intent. Short emoji comments are common from genuine followers but are also easily generated by bots or paid engagement, so there is nontrivial uncertainty about authenticity. Given the minimal sample, the comment quality for advertising evaluation is weak — advertisers usually prefer substantive, specific comments that indicate engaged, relevant followers. Recommendation: gather a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check comment diversity and uniqueness, inspect commenter profile ages/activities, compare likes-to-comments ratios, and run a follower authenticity audit before making an ad purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive endorsement / brand admiration", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal liking for the brand and signals social proof (enthusiastic endorsement, mentions availability at Sephora which amplifies credibility)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, positive, and specific endorsement in French with an emoji: \"I love this brand and so happy to find it at Sephora now.\" It reads as organic consumer enthusiasm rather than a canned promotional line—no hashtags, no tagging, no obvious sales call-to-action. Signs of inauthenticity are low (score 15) but confidence is moderate because assessment is based on one comment only. For advertising decisions this is a mild positive signal: the comment demonstrates product-awareness and favorable sentiment, but a single example is insufficient to conclude broad genuine engagement. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter profile (account age, posting history, follower/following ratio), scan the full comment set for repeated phrasing or many similarly worded praise comments (bot pattern), and measure comment-to-follower and like-to-follower ratios to estimate true audience engagement before committing to a paid partnership." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Короткое выражение одобрения/восхищения; низкоинформативное взаимодействие, которое повышает видимость поста (engagement) без содержательной обратной связи." } ], "interpretation": "Предоставлен один комментарий — два эмодзи (😍😍). Такой комментарий указывает на положительную, но низкоинтеллектуальную реакцию: быстрое лайкоподобное подтверждение эмоции автора поста. По одному эмодзи невозможно достоверно судить об органичности аудитории — это может быть как искренний, короткий отклик реального подписчика, так и автоматизированный/массовый отклик (боты, комментарий-поды, покупные взаимодействия). Оценка фейковости установлена в 60/100 с умеренной уверенностью (40/100) из‑за отсутствия контекста (нет данных о профиле комментатора, частоте одинаковых комментариев, распределении по времени и общей картине комментариев). Для принятия решения о покупке рекламы рекомендую запросить или самостоятельно проверить: 1) объём и разнообразие комментариев (процент содержательных vs. emoji-only), 2) профили комментаторов (реальные имена, аватары, активность, число подписчиков), 3) временные паттерны появления комментариев (всплески за короткое время), 4) совпадения текста/эмодзи между разными пользователями (шаблонные ответы), 5) общий engagement rate и соотношение лайков/комментариев к подписчикам. На текущем основании общий индекс пригодности для покупки рекламы низкий (35/100, уверенность 45/100): один эмодзи-комментарий даёт слабый качественный сигнал и не подтверждает активную лояльную аудиторию. Рекомендация — запросить полный срез комментариев и метрик или провести дополнительную выборочную проверку перед инвестицией." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive reaction / lightweight engagement (showing support or affection)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a single heart emoji. This is a very small sample and gives limited signal. Emoji-only comments are common among real followers as quick positive responses, but they are also commonly generated by low-effort bot activity or purchased engagement. Given the single data point, I assessed fakeness as uncertain (around 50) with low-to-moderate confidence. For advertising feasibility, this single emoji does not allow a reliable judgment about audience quality, authenticity, or conversion potential. Recommended next steps before deciding on ad spend: collect a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, examine commenter account quality (age, follower counts, profile pictures, posting history), look for repeating accounts or identical short comments, check like counts and engagement rate relative to follower count, and obtain audience demographics and reach metrics. With more complete data, a more confident recommendation on purchasing advertising can be provided." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Superficial positive reaction / lightweight engagement (signals approval or enjoyment without substantive feedback). Commonly used to register presence or express emotion quickly." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two heart-eyes emojis (\"😍😍\"). Emoji-only comments are low-effort and ambiguous: they can be authentic quick reactions from real followers, but they are also frequently produced by bots or low-value engagement farms because they require no context or knowledge of the content. Given the lack of additional comment variety, depth, or conversational threads, the current comment sample suggests limited meaningful audience engagement. For advertising purchase decisions this is a weak signal — emojis indicate positive sentiment but provide no evidence of interest intensity, purchase intent, or an engaged community. \n\nRecommendations to improve assessment confidence: collect more comments and likes, inspect the commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting activity, avatars, bios), check timing patterns (many comments posted in short bursts), examine like-to-follower and comment-to-follower ratios, and look for substantive comments (questions, personal stories, tagged friends) or repeat commenters. Without that additional context, treat this post's comment-level engagement as low-quality and insufficient by itself to justify ad spend." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (❤️❤️❤️)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive engagement — expresses appreciation/like and increases visible engagement. Low informational or purchase-intent value. Could be genuine follower support, an engagement pod reaction, or a bot-generated/low-effort comment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only (three hearts) response. Such comments are low-signal: they boost visible engagement but do not indicate purchase intent, detailed feedback, or strong audience interest. Emoji-only replies are commonly produced by real followers as quick positive reactions, but they are also frequently used by engagement pods and low-effort bot accounts; given only one comment to evaluate, I lean toward moderate likelihood of low-quality/automated engagement (fakeness score 65) but the confidence is limited. For an ad-buy decision this comment alone is insufficient — overall audience quality, comment variety (questions, testimonials), saves, link clicks, story responses, follower authenticity and repeated patterns across multiple posts should be reviewed. Recommended next checks: analyze a larger sample of comments across recent posts, inspect commenter profiles (activity, follower/following ratio, profile completeness), and compare engagement rate to follower count." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressing positive reaction/admiration; low-effort engagement" }, { "type": "generic praise (text)", "count": 0, "purpose": "Short positive words (e.g., 'nice', 'love it') indicating approval or support" }, { "type": "questions/inquiry", "count": 0, "purpose": "Requests for information or conversation starters (e.g., pricing, source)" }, { "type": "user-tag/mention", "count": 0, "purpose": "Tagging others to draw attention to the post" }, { "type": "promotional/spam", "count": 0, "purpose": "Spam links, unrelated adverts, or repeated promotional messages" }, { "type": "bot-like/repetitive", "count": 0, "purpose": "Highly repetitive comments across posts, often indicating purchased engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: four heart-eyes emojis (😍😍😍😍). Emoji-only comments are a lightweight positive signal — they indicate approval or admiration but carry very little informational value. With just one short emoji comment there is insufficient evidence to judge authenticity robustly. Emoji-only responses are common from genuine followers, but they are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or purchased-comment services because they are low-effort and appear to boost visible engagement. Given that lone data point, I rate the fakeness moderately high (60) but with only moderate confidence (45) because the sample is extremely limited. For advertising decisions, this single emoji comment is a weak indicator of an engaged, responsive audience. A reliable assessment would require more comments across multiple posts, patterns of repetition, follower-to-comment ratios, and qualitative signals (questions, specific praise, user handles). Based on available information, the overall suitability for an ad buy is low-to-moderate (40) with moderate-low confidence (40). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent posts (at least 20–30), check comment diversity, look for meaningful interactions (questions, product mentions), inspect follower growth patterns and like-to-comment ratios, and run a follower authenticity audit before committing ad spend." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Surface-level positive engagement (expresses liking/appreciation). Low informational value about intent to purchase or meaningful interest; can be genuine fan support or generated by low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists entirely of repeated heart emojis. Emoji-only comments indicate positive sentiment but provide no purchase intent, specificity, or conversation. They are easy to fabricate or copy-paste and therefore have a substantial chance of being low-quality or inauthentic engagement. With the current limited sample, I rate the comment set as likely low-value for advertising assessment (fakeness 70/100) but with moderate uncertainty because a single emoji comment can also be genuine (confidence 45/100). Overall suitability for an ad buy is low (30/100) given the lack of substantive comments, low signal for audience interest, and insufficient data to verify audience quality (overall confidence 40/100). Recommended next steps: obtain the full comment dataset, look for repeat/identical comments across posts, check commenter account quality (age, follower counts, profile activity), evaluate likes/saves/views and comment-to-follower ratio, and look for specific product-related or conversation-driving comments before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 🔥🙌🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction / short praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval with minimal effort (positive engagement signal). Often used to show appreciation without starting a conversation." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short emoji reaction (🔥🙌🔥). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers as quick positive feedback, but they are also frequently used by bots, fake accounts, or engagement-farming tactics because they require minimal effort. With only one comment provided and no contextual data (number of total comments, commenter account details, timing, likes on the comment, follower counts, or reply threads), the assessment is highly uncertain. The moderate fakeness score reflects that this kind of comment is ambiguous — plausible from a real fan but also low signal for authenticity. For advertising feasibility, this single short emoji comment is weak evidence of a genuinely engaged audience. Recommend collecting a larger sample of comments, checking commenter profiles (activity, followers, posting history), looking for varied comment types (questions, long-form praise, tagging, conversation), and comparing comment volume to follower count and post likes to better judge audience quality before purchase." }

Text: La qualité est superbe !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short praise / social proof for the product or content — signals approval but gives no personal detail or purchase context." } ], "interpretation": "The sole comment, \"La qualité est superbe !\", is a brief, positive endorsement. This type of comment functions as social proof and encourages engagement, but it is generic and lacks personal detail (no mention of buyer experience, model, fit, price, or specific features). With only one comment, it's impossible to reliably judge authenticity; such brief compliments can be genuine from a satisfied follower, or they can be boilerplate replies from casual users or automated/bot accounts. The medium fakeness score reflects that generic praise is commonly both genuine and replicated by non-organic commenters. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. I recommend a fuller audit before purchase decisions: examine total comment volume and variety, commenter account quality (follower counts, post history, avatars, bios), timestamps (clustering), language variation, and engagement rate (likes-to-followers). Also check for replies/conversation, repeat commenter patterns across posts, and any signs of purchased engagement." }

Text: Wowwww 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short praise / emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment; low-effort engagement that increases visible activity but provides little substantive feedback or intent to convert." } ], "interpretation": "Sample size is extremely small (one comment). The comment \"Wowwww 😍😍😍😍\" is a generic, high-positivity, low-information response. Such comments commonly come from genuine fans but are also typical of automated bots, engagement pods, or casual followers who leave brief praise. Signs increasing suspicion: no additional text, heavy emoji use, hyperbolic stretching of a word — all features of low-effort engagement. Signs of possible genuineness: natural-sounding short praise and normal emoji use by everyday users. Given the single comment, I assess a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness score 60, confidence 65) because the comment alone lacks distinguishing signals. For advertising purchase decisions this evidence is insufficient: overall suitability score 45 with moderate-low confidence 50. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition patterns, commenter account quality (follower counts, posting history, profile photos), timestamps (burst commenting), like-to-comment ratios, and presence of substantive, specific comments that indicate real audience interest." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "compliment + referral/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise for the product/post and redirect readers to another Instagram account (recommendation, cross-promotion, or referral)." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment text: “La qualité à l’air génial ! Toi qui en cherché un regardes @r.e.n.o.r.g 😍” — This is a positive engagement (compliment) combined with a tag that points readers to another account. Possible explanations: 1) a genuine follower recommending an alternate seller/account to a friend; 2) mild self-/affiliate-promotion or competitor referral; 3) spammy or promotional comment if the same tag appears repeatedly in other comments. The language has a small typo which slightly reduces the likelihood of a templated bot message. Given only one comment, the sample is very small — assessment limited. Fakeness estimate (30/100): more likely genuine than obviously fake, but tagging behavior introduces non-negligible chance of promotion/spam. For advertising decisions: positive sentiment is good, but the presence of referral tags can indicate either organic word-of-mouth (good) or ad-driven/comment-farming / competitors promoting themselves (bad). Recommended next steps before buying ads: check comment volume and patterns (are many comments tagging the same account?), inspect commenter profiles for real followers and interaction history, and examine overall engagement rate and like-to-comment ratios on multiple posts. If many similar referral comments appear, reduce trust in comment authenticity and proceed cautiously." }

Text: Jen veu un 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive interest / product desire", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses admiration and a desire to have the item (engagement indicating potential buyer interest)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Jen veu un 😍😍\" (likely intended as \"J'en veux un\" / \"I want one\" with heart‑eyes emojis). This is a succinct, positive engagement signal: praise + explicit desire. Such comments are typical of genuine audience interest, but short, emoji‑heavy comments are also commonly produced by bots or generic engagement farms. Given only one comment, it is not possible to judge patterns (repetition, timing, commenter account quality, language consistency, or similarity to other comments) that would strengthen or weaken the authenticity assessment. \n\nRecommendation: treat this single comment as mildly positive evidence of audience interest but insufficient alone to conclude that the post’s engagement is real or that the influencer will deliver sales. For an advertising decision, analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios, and prevalence of similar generic replies. If many comments mirror this phrasing and come from low‑quality accounts, fakeness risk increases. If comments are varied, from real-looking accounts, and include product questions or purchase confirmations, confidence in authenticity and ad feasibility would rise." }

Text: Et la qualité 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise for product/post quality; social proof and engagement (positive sentiment, likely meant to reinforce the creator)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: 'Et la qualité 😍' (French: 'And the quality 😍'). It is a brief, positive compliment with an emoji. Such comments typically serve as social proof and show favorable audience reaction. Given the brevity and generic nature there is a modest chance it could be low-effort or automated, but it is equally consistent with a genuine follower leaving praise. Because the sample size is a single comment, the ability to judge authenticity and overall engagement quality is very limited. Recommended next steps before making an advertising decision: gather more comments from this post and other recent posts; inspect commenter profiles for real accounts (profile photos, posting history, follower counts, language alignment); look for repeated phrases or clusters of similar comments across posts; compare like-to-comment ratios and story/view metrics; and, if possible, request influencer insights (reach, impressions, audience demographics). Based on this single comment alone, the comments provide weak positive signal but are insufficient to confidently recommend ad spend." }

Text: Canon 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "brand-mention / short compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction to the content or the brand (simple endorsement or admiration), likely intended to show appreciation or identify the gear/brand shown." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: a short, positive brand mention ('Canon 😍'). This is low-information: it expresses admiration and may indicate genuine interest from a viewer, but could also be a generic/low-effort comment that bots or casual browsers commonly leave. There is no visible pattern of repetitive phrasing, timing, or multiple similar comments to strongly suggest coordinated or fake activity, but a single brief comment is insufficient evidence either way. For advertising decisions, this single comment provides minimal social proof. I recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity), overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), and comment timestamps to better assess authenticity and audience quality before purchasing ad space or influencer promotion." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Greeting / celebratory", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seasonal/new‑year well-wishing; lightweight engagement using emojis to convey friendliness. Generic praise/acknowledgement rather than product- or brand-specific interaction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Bonsoir bonne année 2026 à toi 🎉🍾🥂🧸🎊') is a short, natural French greeting with celebratory emojis. It appears human and context-appropriate (low likelihood of being fake or bot-generated), hence a low fakeness score. However, as a lone, generic comment it provides almost no evidence of meaningful audience interest, purchase intent, or brand-relevant engagement. For advertising feasibility this is weak signal: it shows that followers will leave polite greetings but not whether they are an engaged, targetable audience. Recommended next steps before any purchase decision: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts (look for diversity of commenters, specific product mentions, question/answer exchanges), inspect commenter profiles for real accounts vs. shells, compute engagement rate (likes, comments per follower), check comment timing and repetition patterns (identical comments across posts), and review follower quality. Based on this single comment alone, I would not consider it sufficient evidence to approve ad spend." }

Text: Et au resto 🤭😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "casual/friendly remark", "count": 1, "purpose": "Social engagement / banter — a short, informal reaction referencing meeting or eating out (low informational or commercial value)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Et au resto 🤭😂') is a brief, informal French remark with playful emojis. It reads like a genuine, low-effort interaction from a follower or friend rather than a promotional or bot-like message. Because it is context-specific and contains natural language plus emojis, it leans genuine, but one comment is far too small a sample to judge overall audience authenticity or commercial engagement. The comment shows conversational community presence but provides little evidence of purchase intent, product interest, or meaningful engagement metrics useful for ad targeting. Overall, based on this lone comment I assign a low fakeness score but also low confidence; for advertising feasibility you should request a larger sample of comments, engagement rates over time, follower quality, and demographic/behavioral data before making a decision." }

Text: 😍😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive engagement — expresses amusement/affection. Can be from a real follower or a low-effort/bot account used to inflate engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: two emojis (😍😂). This is a low-information signal. Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine followers (quick positive reaction) and from bots or low-effort engagement accounts; without additional context (commenter profile, timing, frequency, variety of comments, like counts, follower demographics) it's not possible to reliably judge authenticity. Given the generic nature of the comment, there is a moderate probability it could be inauthentic (hence the fakeness score ~60) but confidence in that assessment is low. For advertising purchase feasibility, this single generic emoji comment provides very weak evidence of an engaged, valuable audience; treat the influencer as undetermined/low-priority until you can review more comprehensive engagement metrics and commenter profiles." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; low-effort engagement (simple emotional feedback rather than substantive interaction)" } ], "interpretation": "The only comment provided is ‘😂😂’, an emoji-only reaction. Emoji-only comments are common among genuine followers and typically signal a quick, low-effort positive response (amusement or agreement). By themselves they are low-information and do not strongly indicate either high-quality organic engagement or clear signs of purchased/fake comments. The absence of repetitive spam patterns, promotional links, or coordinated text does slightly favor authenticity, but one short emoji is insufficient evidence. For advertising feasibility this single comment suggests some lightweight engagement but does not demonstrate a responsive, brand-relevant audience. Recommendation: review a larger, representative sample of comments, likes-to-follow ratio, follower quality (profiles), timing patterns, and engagement consistency before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: J’en rêve ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / aspirational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses desire/admiration for the post (emotional endorsement with a heart emoji). It signals personal interest rather than a direct call-to-action, recommendation, or question." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"J’en rêve ❤️\" is short, positive and emotive. Linguistic cues (French phrasing, contraction, heart emoji) point toward an authentic, spontaneous reaction: the commenter is saying they \"dream\" of the product/experience. Short positive comments like this are common among real followers but are also commonly used in engagement pods or by low-effort bot accounts, so a single instance is weak evidence either way. Given only this one comment: - Likely genuine but not definitive (hence low fakeness score but moderate uncertainty). - Provides limited signal for ad-buy decisions; it shows a positive sentiment but does not demonstrate purchasing intent, audience quality, or sustained engagement. Recommendation: before using this influencer for advertising, expand analysis to include (a) the commenter(s) profiles (follower counts, activity, language/geo), (b) comment diversity and repetition across multiple posts, (c) timing patterns (many similar comments posted quickly can indicate automation), and (d) overall engagement metrics (likes-to-follower ratio, comment rate, video views). Without that, the post-level evidence is insufficient to confidently approve a paid partnership." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/affection (social proof). Low informational content about intent to purchase; often used to boost visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided ('❤️❤️❤️'). This is a lightweight, positive reaction that signals audience approval but carries very low diagnostic value for authenticity or commercial intent. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also trivial for bots or coordinated engagement farms to generate, so there is a moderate probability (fakeness_score 40) that such comments could be inauthentic — confidence is low-to-moderate because the sample size is one. For advertising feasibility this evidence is weak: an overall_score of 30 reflects that one positive emoji does not demonstrate meaningful audience quality, reach, conversion potential, or authentic engagement. Confidence in that overall assessment is low (30) because comprehensive judgement requires more data (full comment set, commenter profiles, follower quality, engagement rate over time, saves/shares, story reach, past campaign performance). Recommended next steps: provide the full comments list, sample commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, content), post metrics (reach, impressions, likes, saves, shares), and historical engagement trends to produce a reliable authenticity and suitability assessment for advertising." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement / positive reaction; low-effort engagement that signals attention but conveys no substantive endorsement or purchase intent. Ambiguous authenticity (could be genuine follower or automated/low-effort account)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment consists of three 'face with tears of joy' emojis. This is a low-information, low-effort reaction that only indicates amusement or positive feeling; it does not provide sentiment depth, intent to buy, or influencer advocacy. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but also frequently appear in bot/engagement-for-hire behavior, so authenticity is ambiguous. Given only one short emoji comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge audience quality or advertising suitability. Fakeness scored moderately low (30) but with limited confidence because there is no contextual data (commenter profile, comment timing, repetition across posts, overall comment distribution). Overall advertising-feasibility score is cautious (40) — the presence of an emoji reaction is not a red flag by itself, but it does not support a claim of high-quality, engaged, purchase-intent audience. Recommended next steps before purchasing advertising: examine commenter profiles (age, bio, follower/following ratios), check for repeating identical comments across multiple posts, compute overall engagement rate and comment diversity across several recent posts, and run a bot-detection or audience-authenticity check." }

Text: 🥰🥰🥰

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive sentiment / lightweight engagement — shows approval but provides no substantive feedback; can be genuine follower support or low-effort/bot activity" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists of three heart/affection emojis. This indicates positive sentiment but is low information and low-effort engagement. Emoji-only comments are common both from real followers and from automated or incentivized accounts, so the fakeness assessment is highly uncertain. From an advertising-feasibility perspective this single, shallow comment is a weak signal: it does not demonstrate engaged, meaningful audience interaction or provide insight into audience relevance. Recommendation: do not base an ad-buy decision on this alone. Collect more data — total comments, comment diversity, timing, commenter profile quality (followers, activity, bio), like-to-follower ratio, recurring identical comments, and presence of spam or promotional comments — before deciding. Based on the available evidence, treat this post as low-priority for ad placement unless stronger engagement metrics and authentic audience indicators are found." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive_product-specific", "count": 1, "purpose": "Endorsement/praise of a product feature (obstacle avoidance); provides social proof and supports the brand's strategy." }, { "type": "expert/technical_opinion", "count": 1, "purpose": "Appears to convey informed or technical perspective, suggesting familiarity with DJI's technology rather than generic praise." }, { "type": "spam/generic_bot", "count": 0, "purpose": "No generic, promotional, or link-based spam indicators detected." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a specific, positive, product-related statement: 'La stratégie de DJI est en réalité judicieuse : l'évitement d'obstacles est leur domaine de prédilection.' This reads as informed praise or a brand-supporting opinion rather than generic bot-like text. There are no obvious markers of automation (no repeated phrases, emojis, links, or off-topic hashtags). Given only one comment, assessment confidence is limited: low likelihood of fakery for this comment (fakeness_score 10), but the sample is too small to generalize across the post. For advertising feasibility: this single informed positive comment is a small positive signal (hence overall_score 60) but you should evaluate a larger sample (comment volume, repetition patterns, commenter account quality, timing, like counts on comments, and follower overlap) before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval; generic engagement with no substantive content. Can serve to boost visible engagement but carries little informational value and can be produced by either real users or low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is emoji-only (\"😂😂😂\"). This provides very limited signal about audience authenticity or intent. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by engagement pods or low-effort bot accounts, so the comment's authenticity is ambiguous. Given the tiny sample, assign a moderate fakeness estimate (50/100) with low confidence (35/100). For advertising-buy decisions this comment offers negligible social proof; overall assessment is low (30/100) with low confidence (30/100). Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: review a larger sample of recent comments for diversity and substance, check commenter profiles for real-account signals (profile pictures, post history, follower counts), compare comment volume to follower count and post impressions, look for repeated copy-paste comments or timing patterns, and analyze likes/views engagement metrics alongside comments." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive product endorsement (brand mention)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise/endorsement of a product (likely to promote the brand or express positive experience). Could be genuine user praise or short promotional content." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single short, generic positive comment: \"Les aspirateurs robots DJI sont vraiment excellents ,ils ont une grande puissance d'aspiration.\" It names a brand and makes a product claim without personal detail or contextual information. This form is typical of both brief genuine praise and simple promotional/bot comments. Indicators leaning toward inauthenticity: generic wording, no personal anecdote, and a single claim that reads like advertising. Indicators for authenticity are limited but include natural language in French and a plausible product attribute (suction power). Given the ambiguity and the very small sample size (one comment), confidence in the fakeness assessment is moderate rather than high. For influencer advertising feasibility: the comment provides little reliable social proof. One generic positive remark is not sufficient to judge audience engagement or trustworthiness. I would advise requesting a larger comment sample, checking commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts, history of similar comments), and inspecting other engagement metrics (likes, saves, story interactions) before proceeding with an ad purchase decision. Based on this single comment, the post's comment section does not strongly support paid advertising investment (overall score 40/100)." }

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": 65, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product praise / testimonial (comparative)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive endorsement highlighting a specific product feature (quiet operation) and comparing it favorably to a previous brand; aimed at recommending/informing potential buyers." } ], "interpretation": "The comment is a short, specific positive endorsement: it praises the product's quietness and directly compares it to the user's prior Ecovacs, noting they can run it overnight. The specificity (feature mentioned and comparative context) reduces the likelihood of it being generic or obviously fake. However, this is a single comment with no surrounding context (engagement metrics, user profile, or additional comments), so confidence is limited. For influencer advertising decisions this comment is a mild positive signal but insufficient alone to conclude audience quality or campaign effectiveness. Recommend evaluating a larger sample of comments, likes, reply patterns, commenter account authenticity, and overall engagement rate before making a purchase decision." }

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": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Content praise / cultural reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enjoyment of the video and makes a specific cultural comparison (engagement, signals genuine attention to content)." }, { "type": "Product endorsement / testimonial", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct praise of a product (robot vacuum) which functions as a positive review or promotional statement." }, { "type": "Engagement-driving / visibility support", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive comment that can increase post interaction and visibility (algorithmic benefit)." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment mixes a specific, non-generic reaction to the content (reference to Buster Keaton) with a clear positive endorsement of a product. The cultural reference and sentence detail lower the likelihood of it being an obvious bot/generic spam message; however the strong product praise could be either an organic user testimonial or a planted promotional comment. With only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw robust conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Recommended next steps before buying advertising: (1) inspect a larger sample of comments across multiple posts for repeated phrasing or identical praise (sign of fake/comment farms); (2) review commenters' profiles for follower counts, posting history and genuine interactions; (3) check engagement ratios (likes vs comments) and comment timestamps for bursts; (4) search for identical comments on other influencers (copy-paste spam). Conclusion for ad feasibility: the comment is mildly encouraging (positive sentiment) but far from sufficient evidence of a healthy, authentic engaged audience. Proceed with further checks; do not rely on this single comment as proof of high-quality engagement." }

Text: DJI👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "brand mention / short endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "single-word brand mention with emoji; likely intended as praise, brand shout-out, or simple positive reaction. Could also be low-effort engagement (bot/spam) or a promotional tag." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment ('DJI👍') is available. This is a low-information, low-effort engagement: it signals some positive association with the brand but provides no substantive interaction (no question, no detail, no conversation). Such comments are common for both genuine micro-enthusiasts and for automated or paid engagement, so authenticity is ambiguous. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is not a reliable indicator of healthy, organic audience engagement or purchase intent. Recommendation: examine broader comment set and commenter accounts (account age, follower count, comment diversity, timing), overall like-to-comment ratios, and presence of repetitive one-word brand comments to better judge authenticity before buying ads or partnerships." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 72, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive_feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enjoyment/approval of the content." }, { "type": "purchase_intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Signals intent to buy ('je vais craquer' = 'I'll cave in/buy')." }, { "type": "product_mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "References specific items (robot vs. lapin), useful for product-level interest." }, { "type": "emoji_reaction/casual_tone", "count": 1, "purpose": "Adds emotional nuance and conversational authenticity (laughing emojis)." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is short, informal and specific: positive tone with laughing emojis, explicit purchase intent (‘je vais craquer sur le robot’) and a product preference (not the rabbit). The language and small typo/colloquiality increase likelihood it is genuine rather than bot-driven. Fakeness risk is low (~12/100) but not zero because assessment is based on one comment only. Overall this is a favorable signal for influencer-driven conversions (shows real interest in a product and natural engagement), so the post has reasonable ad value based on this comment alone. Confidence in the overall assessment is moderate-low due to the extremely small sample: recommend reviewing a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, account age), comment timing patterns, and engagement rates to validate authenticity and scale before a purchasing decision." }

Text: J’adore tes idées 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment/Support", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive feedback/admiration to the creator; expresses emotional engagement and encourages the creator (likely increases perceived value and visible engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'J’adore tes idées 😍😍' is a short, positive, emoji-rich compliment consistent with a genuine follower reaction. It lacks typical bot/spam markers (no links, no repetitive generic phrasing, no tagging), so I assign a low fakeness score but with moderate uncertainty because one comment is too small a sample to generalize. For advertising feasibility this is a weakly positive signal — the creator elicits appreciation — but you need broader evidence (volume and variety of comments, commenter account checks, engagement rate across posts, and historical consistency) before deciding to purchase advertising. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity, compare likes-to-comments ratio, and review engagement trends over time." }

Text: J’aime bcp le scénario 😁🐰

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive appraisal / compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation of the content (endorsement, engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'J’aime bcp le scénario 😁🐰' reads as a genuine short positive reaction. Indicators of authenticity: uses colloquial shorthand ('bcp'), references a specific element of the post ('scénario') rather than a generic phrase, and includes expressive emojis—patterns typical of real users. There are no obvious bot signals (no repeated template, no links, no short generic one-word praise), but one comment is insufficient to conclude overall audience quality. Fakeness is low-moderate (20/100) but confidence is limited because of the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility the evidence is weak — a low overall score (30/100) reflects insufficient engagement data rather than a strong negative signal. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: gather a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, follower-to-following ratios), check like-to-comment ratio and posting timestamps for organic engagement patterns, and search for repeated/comment templates that indicate inauthentic activity." }

Text: 👏👏❤😘😘😘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort visible endorsement (applause/affection). Serves to boost apparent engagement and show positive sentiment but provides no substantive feedback; could be from genuine fans, engagement pods, or automated/low-quality accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment consists only of emojis (clapping hands, heart, kissing faces). Emoji-only replies are common and indicate positive sentiment, but they are low information and frequently produced by fans, casual viewers, engagement pods, or automated accounts. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient evidence to strongly judge authenticity. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji-only comments are easier to manufacture and thus have a higher risk of being non-organic, while the low confidence scores reflect the extremely small sample size. For an advertising purchase decision, this single comment is weak evidence of meaningful audience engagement. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), comment timing patterns, repetitiveness across posts, and overall engagement rate before concluding on influencer authenticity and suitability for ads." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single emoji (❤️)", "count": 1, "purpose": "generic positive reaction / low-effort engagement (adds visible engagement but conveys no specific interest or intent to purchase)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it is a single heart emoji. This is a minimal, generic positive reaction that can come from a genuine follower or from automated/low-effort accounts. Indicators raising fakeness suspicion: lack of textual content, no specificity toward the post or creator, and sole presence of an emoji (common in mass/comment-bot behavior). Indicators of genuineness: genuine fans also commonly leave heart emojis. Given the extremely limited sample size, assessment is uncertain — I estimate moderate likelihood of non-authentic engagement (fakeness_score 60) but with only medium confidence (50).\n\nOverall advertising-feasibility score is low-to-moderate (40) because a single generic comment does not demonstrate meaningful audience engagement, interest, or purchase intent. Confidence in that recommendation is limited (40) due to lack of data. To improve assessment, provide more comments, number of likes, follower count, commenter profiles (are they real accounts, follower overlap, comment timestamps), engagement rate, and examples of longer-form comments. With richer data I can give a higher-confidence recommendation." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses applause/affection/enthusiasm (supportive engagement). Low informational value; primarily increases visible engagement. Could be from a genuine follower, engagement pod member, or automated/paid commenter." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a string of clapping, heart and fire emojis — a generic positive reaction. Emoji‑only comments are common among real fans but are also frequently produced by engagement pods, micro‑engagement services, and bots because they are easy to post and boost visible metrics. With only this one comment and no account context, authenticity is ambiguous (hence moderate fakeness score with low confidence). For advertising-feasibility assessment this comment provides little evidence of an engaged, brand-receptive audience: it signals surface-level support but not product interest, purchase intent, or meaningful conversation. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts for diversity (questions, product mentions, long-form testimonials), check commenter account quality (age, follower/following ratios, posting history), look at saves/shares/impressions and conversion metrics if available, and inspect comment patterns (many identical emoji comments across posts suggests inorganic activity). Based on the one comment alone, I would be cautious about relying on this post’s comments as proof of authentic audience engagement." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive reaction/affection; low informational value. Could be genuine low-effort engagement from a follower or generic bot-like interaction." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment provided: two heart emojis. Emoji-only comments signal positive sentiment but carry little informational value for assessing audience quality. Such comments are common both from real followers (quick appreciation) and from automated/generic engagement (bot farms or mass-likers). Given the single short comment, the fakeness estimate is moderate (40) with limited confidence — there is insufficient context (no commenter profile, timestamps, volume/pattern of similar comments, likes, follower counts). For advertising feasibility the current evidence is weak (overall score 30): risk is moderate because engagement appears superficial; recommend extra checks before purchase: review multiple recent posts for comment diversity and repetition, inspect commenter accounts for authenticity (profile completeness, follower/following ratios, activity history), analyze engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), look for repeated emoji/generic comments across posts, and check timing patterns indicative of bot activity."}

Text: 🔥🔥🔥 Bravo 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short emoji-rich praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/enthusiasm (low-effort engagement). Likely intended to signal positivity and boost visible engagement; could be from a genuine follower or generic/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“🔥🔥🔥 Bravo 🔥🔥🔥”) is a brief, generic positive reaction with heavy emoji use. This kind of comment is ambiguous: it can be authentic (a real follower giving quick praise) but is also characteristic of low-effort or purchased engagement (generic one-word compliments and repeated emojis). With only one comment and no commenter metadata (account age, follower count, comment timing, repetition across posts, likes on the comment), the evidence is weak. Recommendation: treat this as low-quality signal for advertising decisions. You need broader metrics — total comments, diversity of comment types, commenter profiles, engagement rates over time, comment timestamps, and comment likes/replies — before trusting the influencer’s audience authenticity. Based on the available data, I give a modest probability of inauthenticity and a low overall suitability score for buying ads." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reaction / social approval; lightweight engagement that signals appreciation but provides no substantive feedback. Often used by real followers but also common in bot/generic engagement and engagement pods." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: a sequence of clapping-hand emojis (\"👏👏👏\"). This is a generic positive engagement signal that increases visible interaction but carries very little informational value about audience relevance, intent to purchase, or authentic enthusiasm. Emoji-only comments are common from both genuine followers and low-effort/bot accounts; with a single example, it is impossible to reliably distinguish. For influencer-advertising decisions this single comment is insufficient evidence of authentic, high-value engagement. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments for variety and substance (questions, tagged friends, detailed praise/criticism), check commenter account profiles (follower counts, activity, profile photos, posting history), examine comment timing patterns and repetition across posts, and compare like-to-comment ratios. Based on the solitary emoji comment, treat engagement quality as uncertain and proceed cautiously for ad spend." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only applause (👏)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise/approval and increase visible engagement; low informational value about intent to buy. Can be genuine fan reaction, low-effort follower engagement, part of an engagement pod, or a bot-generated comment." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single emoji-only comment (five clapping hands). These comments are common, provide positive but shallow engagement, and are a weak signal of real audience interest or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are frequently used by genuine fans, by users wanting to quickly show support, and by automated or coordinated accounts aiming to inflate engagement metrics — therefore they carry a moderate probability of being inorganic. With only one comment, the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions about the influencer's audience quality. For an advertising purchase decision, this single comment should be treated as low-value evidence. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, commenter account profiles (follower counts, posting history, avatar, username patterns), comment timestamps, likes on comments, ratio of comments to followers, and diversity of comment content to better assess authenticity and conversion potential." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressive/positive engagement (enthusiasm or approval). Low informational value; often used to register attention or appreciation without substantive feedback. Can be organic or generated by bots to inflate apparent engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: three 'fire' emojis (🔥🔥🔥). This is a generic, positive reaction that signals enthusiasm but provides no detail about intent, purchase interest, or genuine audience connection. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they are very common from real followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort bot accounts or engagement farms. Given the single-sample input and absence of account metadata (username, follower count, timing, comment volume, linguistic patterns), I rate the comment's likelihood of being fake as moderate (55) with low-to-moderate confidence (40). For advertising feasibility the evidence is weak: a single emoji comment does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest or conversion potential, so I assign a cautious overall score of 35 with low confidence (30). Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, follower quality signals (growth, follower authenticity), engagement rate over multiple posts, and look for substantive comments (questions, mentions of purchase intent, tagging friends) before making an advertising buy decision." }

Text: 😍😍😍🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show positive sentiment/enthusiasm; lightweight engagement to boost metrics. Low informational value (no product-specific feedback). Could be from a real follower, an engagement pod, or low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only positive reaction (😍🔥...). Emoji-only replies indicate engagement and a positive reaction but carry very little actionable information. Such comments are common from genuine fans but are also frequently produced by engagement pods or low-effort/bought comments — there is no way to distinguish with one example. Given the extremely limited sample, I rate the fakeness risk as moderate (50) with low confidence (30). For advertising-feasibility I give a cautious, low-to-moderate score (40) with low confidence (20): a single emoji comment is not strong evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. To improve the assessment, request a larger sample of comments (top 50–200), commenter profile snapshots (account age, follower counts, activity), timestamps (to detect bursts), repetition patterns across posts, and ratios of likes-to-comments. Also check for substantive comments, diversity of commenters, and third-party engagement-audit results before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses approval/applause (social endorsement). Low-information engagement used for quick positive feedback or signaling support; may serve as lightweight social proof." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"👏👏👏\". This is a generic positive emoji reaction that provides very little signal about genuine audience interest, purchase intent, or depth of engagement. Such comments are common from real followers as quick reactions but are also easy for bots or engagement farms to generate; with one data point the likelihood of fakeness is moderate (hence fakeness_score ~40) and confidence in that judgment is low. For advertising feasibility the available evidence is insufficient — score set to neutral (50) with low confidence. Recommended next steps before any buy: collect a larger sample of comments, analyze comment diversity and length, check commenter profiles for authenticity (age, follower counts, post history), compare like-to-comment ratios, inspect timing patterns (bursts), and look for repeated/similar comments across posts. Only after those checks can a reliable recommendation be made." }

Text: Girlboss 🔥🩷🌸

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / Compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/support for the creator; provide social validation and positive sentiment; contribute to engagement metrics (likes/comments)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, 'Girlboss 🔥🩷🌸', is a short, positive endorsement using a trending empowerment label plus emojis. That pattern is common among genuine fans but also matches generic engagement comments that bots or engagement pods use (short praise + emojis). With only one comment available, the sample is far too small to draw firm conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. The moderate fakeness score (30) reflects that this comment leans more toward genuine supportive language but has characteristics common to low-effort or inorganic comments. The overall score (45) expresses low-to-moderate confidence in this post as strong evidence of an engaged, genuine audience for advertising purposes.\n\nRecommendations: analyze a larger sample of recent comments (50–200), check commenter profiles for real-photo avatars, posting history, follower counts, and varied language; examine comment timestamps for bursts (sign of pods/bought comments); compare like-to-comment ratios and sentiment variety; and review audience demographics and past ad performance. Those steps will materially increase confidence in whether this influencer is a good ad partner." }

Text: Winner🙌❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short praise/celebration (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/support and add lightweight social proof; increases visible engagement without substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Winner🙌❤️\" is a short, positive reaction using emojis. This kind of comment commonly appears from genuine fans but is also frequently produced by generic accounts or comment farms because it requires minimal effort and contains no topic-specific content. With only one comment provided, there is very limited signal: the comment type suggests basic social proof but no meaningful endorsement or product-specific feedback. I estimate a moderate likelihood of being inauthentic (fakeness_score 45) but with low-to-moderate confidence due to the extremely small sample. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single data point is insufficient. Recommend collecting a larger comment sample and checking commenter account quality (age, profile photo, follower count, posting history), repetition of similar short comments across posts, like-to-comment ratios, comment timing patterns, and language diversity before making a buy/no-buy decision." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/praise and provide quick engagement or social proof; can be genuine low-effort fan response or synthetic/bought engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a string of clapping emojis. Emoji-only comments are low-information signals — they do show positive reaction but lack personalization, context, or conversational content. Characteristics that raise suspicion of inauthenticity here: no text, repetitive identical emoji, and lack of connection to post content. However, a single such comment alone is not strong proof of fakeness — real followers often leave quick emoji reactions. Given the limited sample, I estimate a moderate likelihood that this comment is low-quality or purchased engagement rather than a meaningful, engaged follower (fakeness_score 65, confidence 55).\n\nFor influencer ad-purchase decisions: this single comment provides weak evidence of a genuinely engaged audience. If the post's comments are mostly similar emoji-only or repetitive comments, treat the audience as low-quality and reduce trust in organic influence (recommend negotiating price or requesting deeper metrics). If this is isolated among varied, contextual comments and real conversations, it is less concerning.\n\nRecommendations: obtain a larger sample of comments, check for many identical emoji/text across posts, examine commenter profiles (age, follower counts, profile photos, posting history), compare comment-to-like ratio, look at timing patterns (many comments posted near-simultaneously), and request account engagement reports or audience demographics before purchasing advertising." }

Text: La meilleure toi 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive reinforcement for the influencer; signal support and provide social proof (engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"La meilleure toi 😍\" (French: \"The best you\" with heart-eyes emoji). This is a short, generic positive/fan comment intended to praise the influencer and contribute to engagement. With only one short comment, there is very limited signal: the content is consistent with a genuine follower expressing admiration but is also the type commonly produced by generic fans, acquaintances, or low-effort bot/comment farms. There is insufficient evidence to confidently classify it as organic or fake. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single comment is mildly positive but not strong proof of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check commenter account profiles (age, follower/following ratio, post history, language consistency), look for repeated identical phrases across posts, timing patterns, and like counts on comments to better assess authenticity and audience quality." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only_positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "low-effort positive reaction / social proof; can be genuine applause from a follower or low-value automated/bot engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: '👏👏'. Emoji-only comments communicate positive sentiment but carry very little information about commenter intent or authenticity. Such comments are commonly seen both from real followers giving quick praise and from bots or purchased engagement that inflate visible activity. Given the single low-effort comment, I assign a moderate fakeness risk (60) but with limited confidence (45) because the sample is too small to be decisive. For advertising purchase decisions this single comment is weak evidence of a healthy, authentic audience—overall score 35 with low confidence (30). To make a reliable recommendation, collect more data: full comment set, commenter usernames and profiles, comment timestamps, like counts, follower/following ratios, and diversity of comment content." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "low-effort emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive reaction / applause to the post; increases visible engagement but conveys little substantive feedback or intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a sequence of clapping-hand emojis (\"👏👏👏\"). This is a generic, low-effort positive reaction that increases surface-level engagement but provides almost no signal about audience authenticity, interest depth, or purchase intent. Such emoji-only comments are commonly used by real followers to show approval, but they are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort engagement farms; therefore I assigned a middling fakeness score (50) with limited confidence (40) because the sample is tiny. For influencer/advertising decisions this single emoji is insufficient evidence of a healthy, authentic commenting community. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for diversity (text vs. emoji), check commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity, profile pictures, recent posts), look for repeated identical comments across posts, examine comment timestamps for bursts, and compare comment volume to follower count and post reach. Based on the available data the comment quality is low and gives weak support for spending on advertising through this influencer (overall score 35, confidence 45)." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only / generic positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation or affection; lightweight engagement (social signaling) without substantive feedback. Can be from a genuine follower, passive fan, bot, or engagement-pod participant." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it is a single heart emoji (\"❤️\"). Emoji-only comments are common and have low informational value: they indicate a positive reaction but do not demonstrate intent to purchase, product interest, or detailed engagement. Such short comments are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort engagement farms, though many genuine followers use them too. Given the single data point, the assessment leans slightly toward suspicious (hence a moderate fakeness score) but confidence is low. For advertising-feasibility decisions this alone is insufficient: you should inspect the commenter profile(s), overall comment distribution on the post and similar posts, like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns, presence of substantive comments/questions, recurring commenters, and follower authenticity metrics before deciding. Based on this lone comment, I would not recommend proceeding on this evidence alone; treat the result as inconclusive and collect more engagement data." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "positive/approval; low-effort engagement meant to show appreciation or boost visible engagement (social proof)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: three fire emojis (🔥🔥🔥). This is a positive but low-information signal: it indicates approval or enthusiasm but carries no substantive feedback. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers, engagement pods, and low-effort/bot accounts alike, so authenticity is ambiguous from this single sample. Given the minimal data, the comment alone does not provide strong evidence of an engaged, real audience — it may slightly enhance perceived popularity but has limited value for assessing audience quality for advertising. Recommendation: inspect a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), comment diversity (length, questions, tagged friends), timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios before making an ad purchase decision. Current assessment: marginally positive signal but insufficient to rely on for ad buying without further verification." }

Text: ❤️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/approval in a low-effort way; primarily serves to increase visible engagement rather than provide substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a string of hearts and fire emojis (❤️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥❤️❤️). Emoji-only reactions are positive in sentiment but carry very low informational value about audience intent, product interest, or genuine engagement. They are also the easiest type of comment to generate en masse (organic fans, engagement pods, or purchased comments), so their presence alone is a weak signal of an authentic, commercially valuable audience. Given the single emoji-only comment, I rate the comments as moderately suspicious for inauthenticity (fakeness 60/100) but with limited confidence because the sample is tiny. For ad-buy feasibility I give a cautious low score (35/100) because meaningful indicators are missing — there is no conversational engagement, no product-related feedback, no questions or user testimonials, and no commenter context. Recommendations to improve assessment before making advertising decisions: - Collect a larger sample: analyze comments across multiple recent posts (30–50 comments minimum). - Check commenter profiles: look for real accounts (profile photos, follower counts, posting history) vs. throwaway/bot accounts. - Look for comment diversity: proportion of emoji-only, generic praise, conversational replies, questions, and tagged friends. - Check timing patterns: bursts of many similar comments soon after posting can indicate purchased engagement. - Compare engagement metrics: comment-to-like ratio, views (for video), follower count — calculate engagement rate. - Search for duplicate comments across posts or repeated identical emoji strings (sign of automation). Only after these checks will a reliable recommendation for ad spend be possible." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/enthusiasm; low informational value. Can be genuine quick praise or generic bot-like engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three fire emojis (\"🔥🔥🔥\"). This is a very low-information signal. Emoji-only comments commonly serve as lightweight positive engagement but do not indicate meaningful audience interest, intent to buy, or real conversation. Because they are short and generic they are frequently produced both by real users and by automated/batch-engagement accounts, so there is a non-trivial risk of inauthenticity. Given the single data point, confidence in any judgement is low. For advertising purchase decisions, this comment alone neither supports nor rules out feasibility — it mildly suggests audience positivity but provides no evidence of audience quality, targeting, or conversion potential. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent posts for comment diversity and specificity, compute engagement rate (likes/comments relative to followers), check commenter account authenticity (profile completeness, posting history, follower composition), look for repetitive/generic comments across posts and timing patterns, and review reach/insights if available." }

Text: 😍❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction / generic positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/liking; quick engagement to show support or boost visible interaction. Low informational value and not indicative of purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it is an emoji-only reaction (😍❤️❤️❤️). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers as quick positive feedback but are also frequently generated by bots or engagement pods. With a single example and no metadata (user account quality, timing, pattern across posts), authenticity cannot be determined confidently. For advertising purchase decisions this type of comment provides little evidence of an engaged, conversion-ready audience — it inflates visible engagement but is weak as a signal of real interest or buying intent. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter account activity, comment diversity, and engagement patterns across multiple posts before making an ad-buy decision." }

Text: ❤️🔥 trop forte

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short praise with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive feedback / social support; increases visible engagement and signals approval. Could be genuine fan praise or low-effort engagement from an interaction pod/bot." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment '❤️🔥 trop forte' is a short, positive, emoji-rich compliment in French. It conveys support but contains little information about the commenter (no question, no product reference, no detailed opinion), so it is ambiguous: such comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently used in engagement pods or by low-effort bot accounts. Given only one comment, the fakeness estimate is moderately low (30/100) but with limited confidence (40/100) because there is insufficient context (no commenter profile data, timing, repetition across posts, or like counts). For advertising decisions, this sample is too small and low-signal to be persuasive — overall suitability is below average (45/100) with low confidence (35/100). Recommended next steps: review multiple recent posts for comment diversity and specificity; inspect commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history, language consistency, avatar, bio); check comment timing patterns and repetition across posts; compare likes-to-comments ratio; and look for meaningful comments that indicate real audience interest or intent (questions, experiences, purchase mentions)." }

Text: Coucou du vlog 👋🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "greeting / casual engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Friendly acknowledgement of the post (short greeting with emoji). Likely a genuine viewer comment or a simple cross-reference from someone involved with a vlog; low promotional intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Coucou du vlog 👋🏼' is brief, uses natural language and emoji, and does not exhibit typical bot/spam markers (generic praise, repeated phrases, links or emojis-only patterns). This makes it likely to be genuine (low fakeness). However, a single comment is insufficient to judge the overall authenticity or commercial value of the audience. For an advertising decision, comment-level signals are weak here: you need volume and context (many comments, timing patterns, commenter profiles, likes, replies). Based solely on this comment: fakeness risk is low (10/100) but confidence is moderate (55/100) because of the tiny sample; overall suitability for ad purchase based on comments alone is low–moderate (35/100) with low confidence (25/100). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments (50–200), inspect commenter accounts for real follower counts and activity, check engagement rate (likes/comments relative to followers), and look for repeated/templated comments or sudden comment bursts." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous engagement / question", "count": 1, "purpose": "Playful engagement with the post, lightly jokey question about whether one can eat the product (the bar) without training — signals relatability, mild product interest and conversational engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Et si on s’entraine pas on peut quand meme manger la barre? 😂' — 'If we don't train, can we still eat the bar? 😂') appears authentic and human: informal phrasing, emoji, a humorous tone and a direct question about the product. There are no red flags for bot-like or promotional language (no repeated hashtags, links, generic praise or marketing-speak). Given only one comment, evidence is limited: this shows at least some genuine, lighthearted audience interaction and product curiosity, which is positive for influencer advertising, but it is insufficient to conclude broad audience quality. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity), timing and like patterns to better assess authenticity and ad suitability." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "relatable / humorous engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express a personal, light-hearted reaction to the post content and show relatability (joke about preferring raclette over a protein bar)." }, { "type": "tagging / mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Includes another user handle (@stefanypellegalle) to draw that person into the conversation or share the post with them." }, { "type": "non-promotional / conversational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Natural, content-related comment (uses emoji, no links or calls-to-action), indicative of genuine follower interaction rather than spam or bot activity." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as authentic, casual engagement: a follower jokingly contrasts the post's message with their own food preference (raclette vs. protein bar) and tags another user. It contains personal language and emojis, lacks generic praise or marketing language, and does not include external links — all signals consistent with a real human commenter. However, this is only one comment: the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience quality or prevalence of fake comments. For advertising feasibility, this example is mildly positive (shows organic, topical engagement), but you should inspect a larger set of comments, comment timing, repetition patterns, like-to-comment ratios, follower quality, and account growth history before making a buying decision." }

Text: C est motivant !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express brief praise/encouragement; add social proof and positive sentiment without substantive interaction" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"C est motivant !\" (French: \"C'est motivant !\"). This is a short, generic positive response. Such comments can be genuine (a follower reacting briefly) or automated/bot-like because they are non-specific and commonly used across many posts. Given the single sample, assessment is uncertain. Indicators slightly favor genuineness because the comment is in a language matching the post/language context (if the influencer posts in French), but lack of specificity and brevity keep a non-negligible chance of being inorganic. For ad-buy decisions this single comment is insufficient: review the commenter's profile (account age, follower/following ratio, post history, language consistency), distribution of many comments, comment timestamps, repetition of identical comments across posts, likes on comments, and overall engagement rate. Recommendations: gather a larger sample of comments (n>50), spot-check profiles for authenticity, and compute engagement quality metrics before making an advertising purchase." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "supportive / personal advice", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses an opinion and emotional support (encouragement to train when motivated; rejects pressure and guilt). Non-promotional, conversational engagement indicating a likely real follower reaction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Entraîne toi quand t'as envie . La pression et la culpabilité c'est nase.') reads as organic and authentic: informal language, personal viewpoint, no hashtags, no call-to-action or product links, and no signs of templated or promotional text. This suggests genuine audience sentiment around well-being/fitness and emotional support. However, assessment is limited by the extremely small sample (one comment). For advertising feasibility this is mildly positive — the tone indicates real follower engagement and value alignment for lifestyle/wellness brands — but it is insufficient to conclude overall comment quality or audience authenticity. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments for repetition patterns, diversity of commenters, commenter account signals (age, follower counts, posting history), comment-to-like ratio, and timing patterns before making a buy decision." }

Text: C'est toi qui leur fera peur 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/humorous", "count": 1, "purpose": "Lighthearted engagement — expresses familiarity or amusement toward the poster (includes emoji), likely intended to build rapport/acknowledge the post rather than drive a sale." } ], "interpretation": "Comment (French: \"C'est toi qui leur fera peur 😂\" — \"You'll be the one to scare them 😂\") is short, specific to the person in the post and uses an emoji. It reads as organic, conversational engagement from a follower or acquaintance rather than a generic promotional/bot remark. Fakeness score is low because the phrasing is personalized and not templated; however confidence is moderate because the assessment is based on a single comment. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single comment provides minimal evidence: it shows some genuine interpersonal engagement but no indication of purchase intent, audience size, or comment diversity. Recommendation: evaluate a larger sample of comments, likes, follower demographics, comment timestamps, repetition patterns, and presence of generic/promo comments to assess authenticity and conversion potential more reliably." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 2, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 2, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine_engagement", "count": 0, "purpose": "реальные ответы/впечатления от подписчиков, вопросы и обсуждение контента" }, { "type": "bot_generic", "count": 0, "purpose": "шаблонные комментарии (наподобие «Great post», «Nice»), часто автоматизированные" }, { "type": "spam_selfpromo", "count": 0, "purpose": "спам, ссылки и реклама других аккаунтов/товаров" }, { "type": "brand_affiliate", "count": 0, "purpose": "упоминания брендов, партнерские/рекламные запросы или пометки" }, { "type": "emoji_only", "count": 0, "purpose": "комментарии из одних эмодзи — могут быть как искренними, так и сигналом низкого вовлечения" }, { "type": "questions_requests", "count": 0, "purpose": "вопросы подписчиков к автору (логично для оценки реальной аудитории)" } ], "interpretation": "Невозможно провести анализ — в запросе не приведены сами комментарии к посту. Приведённые выше поля заполнены нейтральными/нулевыми значениями, чтобы показать структуру отчёта. Без текста комментариев или скриншота нельзя определить типы взаимодействий, оценить долю ботов/фейка и сделать обоснованное заключение по пригодности инфлюенсера для размещения рекламы. Рекомендация: пришлите полный список комментариев (или скриншот/экспорт), указав язык и контекст поста; после этого будет возможен точный подсчёт типов комментариев, оценка фейковости (по шаблонности, повторяемости, профилям комментаторов, временным паттернам) и итоговая рекомендация по рекламной покупке." }

Text: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic short reaction — laughter", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement / visible engagement with the post; low informational value and no purchase intent. Such comments can be genuine casual responses or low-effort/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is an all-caps laughter string (\"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA\"). It indicates some level of engagement but carries no topical relevance, intent to purchase, or endorsement value. With only one short, generic comment there is low direct evidence of coordinated inauthentic behavior, so I rate fakeness low-to-moderate (15/100) but with only moderate confidence because short repetitive comments are common both from real users and automated accounts. For advertising feasibility this comment is essentially neutral-to-negative evidence: it does not demonstrate audience interest, product affinity, or meaningful conversation. Recommendation: do not base a buy decision on this alone — collect a larger comment sample, profile commenters (account age, followers, posting history), check for repeated phrases/timing patterns, and evaluate overall comment quality and engagement rates before proceeding." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (laughing emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; low-effort engagement and social signal rather than substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided, consisting of four laughing emojis. Emoji-only comments indicate engagement (positive/ amused reaction) but carry low informational value about audience intent or purchase interest. Such comments are common from genuine users as quick reactions, but they are also easy for bots or engagement services to generate—hence a modest fakeness score (30) with moderate uncertainty (50). For advertising feasibility this single low-effort comment is insufficient evidence of authentic, high-quality audience engagement. Recommend evaluating a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns, diversity of comment content, and like-to-follower ratios before making a buying decision." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or lightweight engagement (positive reaction), increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two 'laughing' emojis. This is a low-information signal. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers as quick reactions, but they are also a frequent output of automated/bot accounts or engagement pods because they require minimal cognitive effort. Indicators slightly suggesting fakeness: very short, context-free, and generic; such comments are often produced programmatically. Indicators suggesting genuineness: laughing emoji is a natural, common human response. Given the single data point, confidence is low. For influencer ad feasibility this comment provides almost no evidence of audience quality, intent, or meaningful engagement (no questions, testimonials, or purchase-related signals). I recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), comment-to-follower ratios, and comment diversity before deciding on ad purchase. Based on the present limited data, I rate the likelihood of inauthentic engagement as moderate (40/100) and overall comment quality for advertising signals as low (30/100)." }

Text: 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement/positive reaction; low informational value; mainly serves to boost visible engagement metrics (like comment count) without signaling purchase intent or audience quality." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided — a laughing emoji. This is a lightweight engagement signal: it shows the post can elicit emotional reactions but provides no substantive feedback about product interest, audience relevance, or authentic endorsement. Emoji-only comments are commonly organic and low-effort, though they can also be generated by low-quality engagement farms or bots; with one example the evidence is insufficient to judge authenticity confidently. For advertising-buy decisions, this single emoji is not enough: request a larger sample of comments, like/comment ratios, follower quality, and engagement on multiple posts before making a purchase decision." }

Text: J'adore 🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/Amusement (short emoji comment)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enjoyment/approval and add visible engagement; low-effort reaction rather than substantive endorsement or intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short French-language positive reaction with laughing emojis (\"J'adore 🤣🤣\"). This is a low-effort, positive engagement typical of real followers who react quickly, but it is also the kind of comment that can be produced by engagement farms or fake accounts because it contains no account-specific detail. Signals slightly favor genuine reaction (natural language + emojis), but the evidence is weak: no questions, no tagging, no conversation thread, and only one comment provided. For advertising-feasibility assessment this comment alone is insufficient to conclude authentic, high-quality engagement. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter(s)' profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), check comment diversity and repetition across posts, measure comment-to-follower ratio, comment likes/replies, and overall engagement trends over multiple posts. Based on this single comment, I rate the likelihood of fake comments as moderate-low (35/100) with moderate confidence, and overall suitability for ad purchase as below average (40/100) with limited confidence because richer comment data is needed to make a reliable decision." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement/approval; low informational value. Can be genuine lightweight engagement from a follower or a generic/bot-like engagement placeholder." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of repeated laughing emojis (\"🤣🤣🤣🤣\"). Emoji-only comments provide very low signal about audience quality or intent: they show engagement but not interest in product-related discussion or purchase intent. Such comments are common from real followers as quick reactions and are also commonly produced by bots or engagement farms to inflate numbers. Given the single data point, the fakeness assessment is tentative (moderately suspicious) and confidence is low. For an advertising decision, this single emoji comment is insufficient evidence of a high-quality, actionable audience. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower count, posting history), comment diversity (texted replies, questions, tagged friends), engagement rates over time, and follower authenticity metrics before deciding to purchase advertising placement." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive short engagement; low informational content and primarily serves as social validation (engagement boosting)." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment consisting of two laughing emojis. That provides very little signal about audience authenticity or sentiment beyond a brief positive reaction. Single-emoji comments are common from real users but are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort engagement services, so I assign a modest fakeness likelihood (around 30%) with moderate uncertainty. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment alone is insufficient — overall comment-level quality appears low and does not demonstrate meaningful, relevant conversation or audience insight. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments and commenter accounts (profile authenticity, follower counts, comment diversity, timestamps, comment-to-like ratio, and relevance to post) before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; low-effort engagement that provides social proof but little substantive feedback. Could be genuine casual reaction, playful response, or a low-effort/bot comment." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is four 'face with tears of joy' emojis (😂😂😂😂). This is an ambiguous, low-information signal: it shows engagement but no substantive sentiment beyond amusement. Emoji-only comments are common among real followers but are also easy for automated or coordinated accounts to produce, so their presence alone is not strong evidence of authenticity. With only one comment available, the sample is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about the overall comment quality or the influencer's audience authenticity. For advertising purchase decisions, this single comment yields a neutral/undetermined signal (overall_score 50) and low confidence. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (ideally 100–500), inspect commenter profiles for follower counts/age/activity, check comment timing and repetition patterns, compare likes-to-comments ratio, and run bot-detection heuristics (identical comments, username patterns, follower/following ratios) before making a buy/no-buy decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive sentiment; low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction but provides no substantive feedback. Could be genuine follower reaction, participation in engagement pods, or automated/low-value bot comments." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of repeated laughing emojis (😂😂😂😂) was provided. Emoji-only comments are low-information signals: they show engagement but not intent, purchase interest, or depth of community. Such comments are commonly produced both by real followers (quick reactions) and by inorganic sources (bots, engagement pods, purchased comments). Given the very small sample (one short emoji-only comment), the fakeness estimate is moderately high (60) but with low confidence (30) because there is insufficient context to distinguish genuine from inorganic behavior. For advertising purchase decisions this single comment is a weak positive signal — it indicates some audience reaction but not meaningful endorsement or audience quality. I recommend collecting more data before deciding: sample a larger set of recent comments (100+), inspect commenter accounts (activity, follower counts, profile completeness), check like-to-follower ratio, look for repeated/similar comments, timing bursts, and language/content variety. With that additional data a more reliable fakeness and suitability assessment can be produced." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/laughter; low-effort engagement that signals positive reaction but provides no topical information" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a repeat of the '😂' emoji (emoji-only). This typically indicates amusement or a positive, lightweight reaction but carries little signal about genuine interest in the creator's content or relevance to an advertiser. Emoji-only replies are commonly produced by real users as quick reactions, but they are also frequently used in inorganic engagement (bot farms or engagement pods) because they require no context. With only one comment provided, sample size is insufficient to conclude authenticity or audience quality. Given the low informational value of the comment, this evidence alone weakly supports influencer ad-buy decisions. Recommend collecting a larger sample of comments, examining commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios, and diversity of comment content before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 🤣🤣🤣

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 20, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/laughter or quick positive reaction; low-effort engagement that can inflate visible interaction metrics" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is emoji-only (🤣🤣🤣). Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers, but they are also commonly produced by engagement pods, low-effort followers, or automated/bot accounts. With one short reaction there is insufficient evidence to conclude authenticity or audience quality. The moderate fakeness score reflects the common use of emoji comments in inorganic engagement, while the low confidence reflects the very small sample size. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is weak evidence—it neither demonstrates meaningful audience interest nor reliable, high-quality engagement. Recommend collecting more data (total comments, variety of comment content, commenter account quality, like-to-follower ratio, comment timestamps and repetition patterns) before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: 😭😭😭😭😭

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express sadness/empathetic reaction or simple engagement; low/no commercial intent. Could be genuine follower emotion or a generic/low-effort engagement (bot or casual user)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is five crying-face emojis. That is an emotional/expressive reaction rather than a substantive engagement (no text about product, purchase intent, or dialogue). From one emoji-only comment it is not possible to reliably judge authenticity — it could be a genuine follower expressing sympathy, a casual low-effort response, or an automated/generic comment. Given this ambiguity, I assign a low-to-moderate fakeness likelihood (30/100) but with low confidence (30/100) because the sample is too small. For advertising-feasibility the signal is weak: this comment does not indicate audience interest in a product or meaningful engagement (overall score 40/100, confidence 25/100). Recommendation: evaluate a larger sample of comments, commenter account quality (age, follower count, posting history), comment diversity (questions, detailed praise/criticism), like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns, and look for repeated identical comments or comment farms before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; low-effort engagement that signals positive reaction to the post but carries little informational value." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: four laughing emojis (😂😂😂😂). This is an emoji-only, low-effort reaction. Such comments can be genuine (a follower reacting briefly) or produced by low-effort engagement (friends, micro-influencers, or generic bot accounts). With only one comment there is insufficient evidence to make a reliable authenticity determination. The moderate fakeness score (40) reflects that emoji-only comments are somewhat more likely to come from low-quality or automated accounts than substantive, conversational replies, but confidence is low because context is missing (no commenter account info, no comment timestamps, no patterns across multiple posts). For advertising feasibility: this single comment provides almost no signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or conversion potential. Recommendation: obtain the full comments dataset and commenter profile information (account age, follower counts, commenting patterns), engagement rate across posts, and whether comments are repeated or templated, before making a buying decision." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express a simple positive reaction/approval. Low informational content; common with both genuine followers and automated/generic engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a heart emoji (\"❤️\"). Emoji-only comments typically indicate positive sentiment but provide no context about user intent, purchase interest, or relationship strength. Because such comments are extremely easy to generate at scale, they are ambiguous signals — they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers or low-effort/bot interactions. Given the single data point, the assessment is highly uncertain. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this sample is insufficient: request a larger, representative set of comments, engagement rate (likes, saves, reach), commenter account quality (real follower counts, activity), timestamps (to detect sudden bursts), and diversity of comment content. Based on the provided comment alone, treat the signal as weak and do not rely on it to approve ad spend without further data." }

Text: Le bonheur ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive reaction / compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive emotion about the post (praise/approval) and provides social proof; low informational value (no product/brand reference)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: \"Le bonheur ❤️\" (\"Happiness ❤️\"). This is a brief, positive emotional reaction typical of genuine followers who like the content, but it is also the kind of generic comment that bots or low-effort engagement farms generate. With a single short comment there is very limited signal about audience quality, intent to purchase, or authentic engagement. For influencer-advertising decisions this sample is insufficient. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments (variety, depth, language), check commenter profiles for real accounts and follower counts, compare comment-to-like rate, inspect timing patterns for unnatural bursts, and run an account authenticity check (follower growth, engagement consistency). Based on the single comment, the likelihood of it being fake is low-to-moderate (score 20) but the confidence in that judgment is only moderate because of the tiny sample; overall suitability for advertising based on these comments is low (score 35) for the same reason." }

Text: Mmmmmm

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Vague / low-effort reaction (e.g., 'Mmmmmm')", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses pleasure/attraction or simple acknowledgement; can be genuine brief engagement but is also a common pattern for bots, engagement farms, or placeholder comments." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single, very short comment ('Mmmmmm') is available, so any assessment is highly uncertain. The comment is ambiguous: it could be a genuine, spontaneous positive reaction (sensual/pleasure signal) or an automated/low-effort engagement token from a bot or engagement service. Given its lack of specificity, it carries limited value as evidence of an engaged, targetable audience. For advertising feasibility, this single comment neither confirms nor rules out authentic audience interest. Recommended next steps: examine more comments across multiple posts, check the commenter’s profile (age, follower count, posting history), look for repeated identical comments across the influencer’s posts, check likes on comments and variety of commenters, and compute overall engagement rate. With only this data point, treat audience quality as questionable and proceed with further verification before committing ad spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reinforcement — praising the content (food) and the influencer's appearance to signal approval and provide social proof." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (Spanish: \"Wooooowww se ve delicioso!! Y tu estás muy guapa!😍\") is a short, enthusiastic compliment combining praise for the food and the creator's looks. Features such as the elongated \"Wooooowww\", emoji and direct address to the influencer suggest a genuine, casual reaction from a follower rather than a templated bot message, though it is low-effort and common phrasing that could be replicated by engagement farms. With only this one comment, there is insufficient evidence to declare strong authentic engagement — it indicates positive sentiment but not depth. For advertising-feasibility decisions, use this as a small positive signal: investigate comment volume, diversity of commenters, timing patterns, commenter profiles (followers, history), like-to-comment ratios and repeated phrasing across posts to better judge authenticity and audience quality before purchase." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/affection and increase visible engagement (simple endorsement; may also be used to attract algorithmic attention)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: four red heart emojis (\"❤️❤️❤️❤️\"). Emoji-only comments are common on Instagram and typically indicate surface-level positive engagement from a follower or fan. They carry low informational value about audience quality or purchase intent. Risks: (1) Emoji-only comments are also commonly produced by low-effort accounts or engagement bots and therefore have a non-trivial chance of being inauthentic; (2) with only one sample and no metadata (commenter username, account age/follower count, posting time, frequency of similar comments) it's impossible to reliably distinguish genuine fan behavior from bot/spam. Given that, I assess this single comment as more likely to be genuine low-effort praise than clearly fake, but confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility: this single data point is insufficient to judge the influencer's audience quality. The low-information comment suggests the post may generate shallow engagement rather than deep, conversion-oriented interaction. Recommended next steps before purchasing advertising: collect a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, examine commenter profiles (real names, profile photos, follower/following ratios, activity), check comment diversity and conversation depth, compare like-to-comment ratios, and run bot-detection checks or third‑party audience audit. Based on the single emoji comment, treat this as weak positive signal rather than strong evidence of an engaged, authentic audience." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Surface-level engagement: expresses affection/support and boosts visible engagement metrics but gives no purchase intent or substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment: three red-heart emojis (❤️❤️❤️). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine fans but are also the easiest type of engagement for bots or paid engagement services to produce; for that reason I rate fakeness risk as moderate (60) with only moderate confidence (50) because a single comment is insufficient evidence. From an advertising-feasibility perspective this comment provides almost no signal of purchase intent, audience quality, or meaningful engagement, so I give a low–moderate overall score (40) with moderate confidence (45). To improve assessment, request a larger sample (most recent 50–200 comments), check commenter profiles (account age, post history, follower/following ratios), look for repeated phrases/emoji patterns, timing clusters, comment-to-like ratio, presence of questions or conversations, saves/shares metrics and audience demographics. With that additional data the fakeness and overall-feasibility scores can be made much more reliable." }

Text: best plan!!!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive/generic praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "surface-level endorsement / social proof — expresses approval but gives no substantive detail; may be meant to boost visible engagement" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"best plan!!!\" is a short, enthusiastic endorsement that provides very little context. Such comments can be genuine (a quick follower reaction) or manufactured (generic praise used by bots or paid commenters). Given only one example and no metadata (commenter profile, timing, repetition across posts, or other comments), assessable authenticity is limited. The comment gives some social-proof appearance but no substantive feedback for ad-targeting decisions. For influencer advertising feasibility: current evidence is weak — if most comments on the post are similar one-word/one-line praises, that would lean toward inorganic or low-quality engagement and reduce ad value. Recommended next steps before purchase: 1) inspect the commenter account (followers, post history, activity, language consistency); 2) analyze the full comment set for repeated phrases, timestamps (burst patterns), and ratio of substantive comments to generic ones; 3) check comment likes/replies and diversity of commenters; 4) compare engagement rate (likes, saves, shares) to follower count. Based on this single generic comment, I give a low-to-moderate confidence that engagement is authentic and a cautious low overall suitability score for advertising until further data is reviewed." }

Text: Que deliiiii 🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive praise with emojis (non-specific)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/admiration for the content (likely food-related); simple engagement to signal approval, low informational value." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Que deliiiii 🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤\". The text is a stretched informal praise (\"qué delicioso\"/\"how delicious\") with multiple drooling emojis. This pattern is common for genuine excited reactions but is also frequently used by low-effort commenters or engagement farms. With only one generic, non-specific comment there is low signal about audience quality or authenticity. Recommended next steps before deciding on ad spend: inspect the commenter account (age, followers, posting history), check for repeated identical comments across other posts, analyze comment/like volume and timing patterns on multiple posts, and review overall engagement rate and audience demographics. Based on this single comment the likelihood of it being fake is moderate-to-low (score 30) but confidence is low; overall suitability of this post for advertising is limited (score 40) because one generic positive comment provides insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Additional data is required for a reliable purchase decision." }

Text: La meilleure journée ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/praising short comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enthusiasm and emotional support for the post (social endorsement/engagement). Likely from a follower or friend to signal approval and boost visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, \"La meilleure journée ❤️\", is a short, natural-sounding French praise with an emoji. It communicates positive sentiment and emotional support — typical of an attendee/follower expressing delight. This kind of comment serves to increase perceived engagement and social proof. The phrasing and emoji look authentic (hence a low fakeness score), but with only one comment and no account metadata (username, posting time, account behavior) it's impossible to rule out a paid/engineered interaction entirely, so confidence is moderate. For advertising feasibility: this single positive comment is a weak signal. It indicates the influencer receives genuine supportive replies but provides no information about volume, diversity of commenters, conversion potential, or audience relevance. Recommend collecting a larger sample of recent comments, commenter account types (real users vs. brand/bot-like accounts), like-to-comment ratio, and engagement trends before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: Le meilleur mood🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive/generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/positive reaction (social support). Low informational value — signals likability but not intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "Single French comment reads 'Le meilleur mood🙌' ('The best mood'). It's a brief, positive, emoji-containing remark consistent with a genuine fan reaction. It is generic and non-specific, so while it contributes to positive engagement metrics, it provides little evidence of authentic brand interaction or purchase intent on its own. With only one comment available, confidence in any judgment is limited. Recommended next steps for an advertising-feasibility decision: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter account activity (real accounts vs. newly created/low-activity profiles), look for diverse, specific or conversation-driving comments, and compare like-to-comment ratios and timing patterns to detect inauthentic engagement." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Enthusiastic praise / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for the post and signal positive sentiment (social proof)." }, { "type": "Intent-to-act (try/use)", "count": 1, "purpose": "States a concrete intention to follow the content (plans to make the recipe), which is a conversion signal." }, { "type": "Emoji-based emotional reinforcement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Uses emojis to convey tone and friendliness, increasing perceived authenticity." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ok, je fais la recette ce week end 😂😍 ça donne trop envie !!') reads as a genuine, natural response: first-person phrasing ('je'), a specific time reference ('ce week end'), enthusiastic emojis, and an expressed intent to try the recipe. These features lower the likelihood it's a bot or generic paid comment. Fakeness is assessed low (10/100) with moderate-high confidence because linguistic cues are authentic. However, this is only one comment — sample size is too small to judge the overall comment ecosystem or audience authenticity. For advertising decisions this comment is a positive micro-signal (shows interest and potential conversion), but not sufficient on its own to justify an ad buy. Recommend: review a larger set of recent comments, check commenter account(s) for activity/age/followers, examine comment timing patterns and overall engagement rate, and look for repeated templated comments or high volumes of similar messages before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Le best plan ❤️🎄

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Praise / Positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/support for the post (short endorsement), increase visible engagement and social proof; likely personal reaction or casual follower praise." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided — \"Le best plan ❤️🎄\" — is a short, positive French endorsement with emojis. Characteristics that suggest genuineness: natural phrasing in French, use of emojis, and a contextually appropriate short reaction. Characteristics that limit confidence: only one comment is available (very small sample), message is generic and could easily be produced by a paid commenter or engagement pod, and there is no additional metadata (timestamp, commenter profile, comment patterns) to corroborate authenticity. Given this, the fakeness score is low–moderate (25) but with limited confidence. For advertising-feasibility decisions this one positive comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommendation: review a larger sample of recent comments, look for repetition/identical comments, check commenter profiles for real follower signals (photos, history, followers), analyze engagement rate relative to follower count, and search for patterns (timing bursts, language repetition). If those checks show similar genuine, varied engagement, the influencer becomes more suitable for ad spend; if you find many short/generic or repetitive comments, reduce trust and consider further vetting." }

Text: Mais j’adore ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple liking/endorsement and provide social proof; low informational value and no call to action." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment 'Mais j’adore ❤️❤️❤️' is a short, enthusiastic, emoji-rich praise. This pattern is consistent with a genuine quick-fan reaction but is also commonly produced by bots or mass-engagement accounts, so authenticity is uncertain. The comment provides positive sentiment but no product-specific detail, no questions, and no user tagging — limited signal for purchase intent or audience understanding. With only this comment available, the sample size is too small to judge the overall comment quality or engagement health. For ad-buy decisions, request more data: volume of comments, distribution of comment types, commenter account quality (profiles, activity, followers), timestamps (to detect bursts), and like-to-comment ratios. Based on the single comment, treat the post as mildly positive but insufficiently informative; proceed with caution and gather broader engagement metrics before committing to advertising spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/relatable reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal, positive response and relatability (staying in and cooking); signals follower identifies with post content and offers genuine engagement rather than promotion." } ], "interpretation": "The comment reads natural and conversational (French, includes emoji and a subjective sensation), so it's likely authentic user engagement rather than a bot or paid/promotional reply. Purpose is to show empathy/relatability and positive sentiment toward the lifestyle shown in the post. For advertising feasibility this single comment is a small positive signal: it suggests the audience includes followers who relate to home/cooking content, which is useful for lifestyle/food/at-home brands. However, one comment is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about overall audience quality or the prevalence of fake engagement. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles for real accounts (posting history, follower counts, profile pictures), review timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and look for repetitive or templated language across comments. Based on this single comment, I rate the likelihood of authenticity high but the overall confidence in ad-buy suitability low–moderate because of limited data." }

Text: Trop belle 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration / positive reaction. Short, generic engagement intended to signal approval and boost visible engagement; could come from a genuine fan, a casual follower, or a low-effort bot/farm account." } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single short comment: \"Trop belle 😍\" (French for \"So beautiful\"). This is a generic positive compliment with an emoji. Such comments are common both from real followers and from automated/low-effort accounts that aim to inflate engagement. With only this one data point, it's impossible to reliably classify authenticity — hence a moderate fakeness score and low confidence. For advertising-feasibility decisions this is insufficient evidence: there is no substantive product-related feedback, no conversation, no diversity of commenter profiles, and no call-to-action. Recommended next steps before purchase: inspect a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check the commenter account(s) for follower counts/activity, compute engagement rate (likes/comments relative to followers), look for repeated/comment-template text patterns, request audience analytics (age/location), and review past sponsored-post performance (reach, click-throughs, conversions). Based on the current single comment, I would not consider this post strong evidence of an authentic, high-value engaged audience — proceed with caution and gather more data." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "generic positive engagement — signals liking/affection but provides no substantive feedback or purchase intent; low informational value for audience quality" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a heart emoji, which is a generic positive engagement marker. This yields very little signal about audience quality or ad-readiness: it could be a genuine follower expressing appreciation, or a low-effort bot/generic engager. With only one short emoji comment there is insufficient evidence to judge authenticity or to recommend advertising spend. I rate the comments as mildly likely to be genuine (fakeness_score 40) but confidence is low because sample size is one. Overall ad-feasibility score is low (30) given the lack of substantive comments, but this is a preliminary assessment. Recommended next steps before making a buying decision: inspect a larger sample of recent comments across multiple posts, profile the commenters (account age, follower counts, posting activity), compare likes-to-comments ratio and engagement rate, look for repeated generic comments or commenter repetition across posts, and run audience-authenticity tools or manual checks. If other metrics (follower quality, consistent authentic comments, real account profiles) are strong, consider a small test campaign rather than a full buy based solely on this comment set." }

Text: Mais ouiii 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / enthusiastic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express agreement/support and emotional reaction (short praise with emojis). Increases visible engagement but provides little substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"Mais ouiii 😂❤️\" is a short, enthusiastic reaction (French: \"But yeesss\") with emojis. It appears genuine and context-appropriate — a casual fan/peer response — but is low information: it conveys positive sentiment only. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or the influencer's real audience engagement. Short, generic praise can be either real low-effort engagement or part of coordinated behavior if repeated across many commenters; determining that requires larger sample analysis (patterns, repetition, account types, timing). For advertising decisions, this single comment is a weak positive signal. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of comments, check commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), measure like-to-comment ratios, look for repeated wording/emojis, inspect comment timestamps for burst patterns, and examine overall engagement rate on multiple posts before purchasing ad inventory." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/approval; low-effort engagement that adds social proof but provides no substantive feedback. Commonly used by genuine followers and by automated/low-quality accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: three heart emojis (\"❤️❤️❤️\"). This is a low-information, positive reaction. Emoji-only comments are a common form of lightweight engagement and can indicate a genuine fan reaction, but they are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort accounts to inflate visible engagement. Given the single data point, there is insufficient evidence to confidently judge authenticity or audience quality. The mid-range fakeness score (45) reflects that emoji-only comments are ambiguous — neither strong evidence of authenticity nor clear proof of manipulation. The overall advertising-feasibility score (30) is low because a single emoji comment provides almost no reliable signal about the influencer's real reach, audience relevance, or conversion potential. Confidence values are modest because the sample size is too small. Recommended next steps before any ad purchase: obtain the full comment dataset (sample across multiple posts), compute meaningful comment ratio (substantive comments vs. emojis/generic replies), analyze commenter profiles for repetition/account age/followers, check engagement rate vs. follower count, review story views/saves/shares and audience demographics, and run automated bot-detection checks. Only proceed with advertising if a larger-sample analysis shows a healthy proportion of authentic, topical, and varied comments and strong engagement metrics." }

Text: On adore ton glow❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and provide social proof; short, emotive engagement that increases visible positivity around the post. Could be a genuine fan message or a low-effort engagement (comment pod / bot)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: \"On adore ton glow❤️\" (We love your glow). It's a short, generic positive comment with an emoji. Strengths: it conveys positive sentiment and contributes to social proof. Weaknesses: it contains no substantive feedback, purchase intent, or detail, and is typical of low-effort engagement that can be left by genuine followers, engagement pods, or automated accounts. Given a single short compliment, I estimate a moderate-low probability of fakery (fakeness_score 30) with moderate confidence; the assessment is limited by the tiny sample size. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient evidence of a high-quality, conversion-ready audience — it signals warm sentiment but not intent or informed engagement. Recommendation: before buying ads or sponsored posts, analyze a larger sample of comments (diversity, specificity), commenter account quality (follower counts, activity, language and audience match), overall engagement rate, and past sponsored-post performance. If most comments are similarly short/generic, discount expected ad effectiveness; if many comments are specific/questions or show intent, consider higher value." }

Text: La base le pop corn 🍿

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Casual short colloquial reaction with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/engagement with the post (organic reaction)" }, { "type": "Promotional/affiliate", "count": 0, "purpose": "Comments promoting products, links or affiliate codes" }, { "type": "Spam/bot-like", "count": 0, "purpose": "Generic or irrelevant comments likely generated by bots" }, { "type": "Question/inquiry", "count": 0, "purpose": "Requests for information or conversation starters" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: \"La base le pop corn 🍿\". This is a short, colloquial French reaction with an emoji, likely meaning the commenter is amused or considers the content basic/obvious in an entertaining way. There are no signs of promotional language, copy-paste patterns, links, or generic bot-like text. Given the brevity and natural phrasing, the comment appears genuine but low-effort.\n\nHowever, a single comment is an extremely small sample. While fakeness appears low (estimated 10/100), confidence is moderate because one short comment gives limited signal. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment alone is insufficient: you need broader measures (total comments, diversity of commenters, follower quality, like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, commenter profiles) to assess audience authenticity and real engagement. Based on this single comment, the post shows minimal organic engagement but no obvious manipulation; overall suitability for ad purchase is uncertain, rated 40/100 with moderate-low confidence. Recommended next steps: analyze multiple posts, full comment set, commenter profiles, engagement rates, and growth history before making purchasing decisions." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only / generic positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/support and increases visible engagement (low-effort interaction). Often used by genuine fans to show appreciation but also frequently produced by engagement pods or automated accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three heart emojis (\"❤️❤️❤️\"). This is a low-information, positive reaction that confirms some engagement but provides no audience insight (no question, purchase intent, feedback, or demographic cues). Emoji-only comments are common among real followers, but they are also the easiest type of engagement to fake or generate via engagement pods/bots. Given the minimal sample, I rate the fakeness risk as moderate (40/100) with medium confidence (50/100). For advertising feasibility this specific comment is weak evidence of a valuable or authentic audience — it increases apparent engagement but does not demonstrate intent, conversation quality, or audience relevance. Overall I give the post a low suitability score (30/100) with moderate confidence (45/100), because the current comment profile (single, generic emoji) suggests low informational value and a potential risk of superficial or inorganic engagement. Recommended next checks before buying ads or partnerships: examine a larger sample of recent comments across posts for diversity and substance; check engagement rate (likes, saves, views) vs follower count; audit follower authenticity (account age, follower growth spikes, follower profiles); look for repeated/similar comments across posts; and review replies from the influencer to comments (authentic interaction is a positive signal)." }

Text: Cette peau incroyable 🤩

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive compliment (with emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise/admiration — provides social proof and positive engagement; likely intended to boost perceived credibility and attractiveness of the post." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Cette peau incroyable 🤩\" (\"This skin incredible\"). It is a brief, positive compliment with an emoji and contains no links or hashtag spam. Strengths: the comment is on-topic (praising skin), which fits typical organic follower responses to beauty/skincare content; absence of repetitive templated phrasing or obvious bot markers reduces the immediate suspicion. Weaknesses/uncertainties: a single short praise is also the kind of generic comment used by low-effort engagement bots and can be left by casual followers with minimal intent. With only one comment it's impossible to assess patterns (repetition across posts, commenter account quality, timing of comments, like-to-comment ratios). Given those facts, the fakeness score is set moderately low (35) but with modest confidence (45) because the sample size is minimal. Overall suitability for advertising is moderate (60) with moderate-low confidence (40): the comment is consistent with genuine audience interest, but you should vet further before purchase — examine many comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting frequency), look for repetitive comments, sudden spikes in engagement, and compare likes vs. comments to detect purchased engagement. If multiple comments show similar genuine context and commenter authenticity, the score would increase; if you find many one-word/generic replies from questionable accounts, the fakeness score should be raised and the overall suitability lowered." }

Text: Lovely and fresh

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive sentiment/engagement — likely to signal approval or aesthetic praise; could be genuine viewer reaction or generic engagement (bot/engagement pod)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: \"Lovely and fresh\". It's a short, non-specific positive remark that lacks personalization, emojis, tags, or details. Such comments often come from genuine casual viewers but are also commonly produced by bots or engagement pods because they are safe, high-frequency compliments. Given the single data point, evidence for authenticity is weak. For advertising decisions this comment alone provides little reassurance about audience quality or conversion potential. Recommend further checks before buying ads or sponsorship: analyze commenter profile(s) (follower count, posting history), overall comment volume and diversity across multiple posts, engagement rate vs follower count, timing patterns, and look for repeated generic comments or identical phrasing across posts. If those checks show varied, contextual comments from real accounts, confidence in the influencer increases; if you find many short generic comments and low-quality accounts, treat the audience as likely inauthentic." }

Text: C’est exactement ça 😂❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "affirmation/relatability", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express agreement and emotional reaction (laugh + heart) to show relatability and positive engagement with the post." } ], "interpretation": "Single short French comment \"C’est exactement ça 😂❤️\" is a natural-looking, context-dependent expression of agreement and amusement. It functions as social proof and signals that at least one follower found the content relatable and positive. The brevity and emoji use are typical of genuine audience responses; there are no obvious signs of promotional language, repetitive phrasing, or bot-like syntax. However, this is only one data point — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall authenticity or engagement quality of the account. For advertising-feasibility decisions, request a larger sample of recent comments, engagement ratios (likes/comments per follower), and audience demographics before committing." }

Text: j’adore !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short generic positive praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation / provide social proof; low informational value and low emotional specificity" } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single short comment: \"j’adore !\". This is a generic positive reaction that increases apparent engagement but conveys no specific interest or conversation. Such low-effort praise can be genuine from a casual follower or a multilingual audience, but it is also the kind of text commonly produced by engagement-boosting bots or comment farms. Given the single data point, the fakeness risk is moderate (estimated 30/100) with limited confidence. For advertising decisions this comment set is insufficient: it neither demonstrates a committed, specific audience nor shows rich, actionable feedback. Recommendation: request more data (total comments, diversity of commenters, timestamps, like-to-follower ratio, repeated phrases across comments, commenter account checks) before relying on this influencer for ad spend." }

Text: 🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval; low-effort engagement that provides social proof but no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a fire emoji (\"🔥\"). This is a generic positive reaction that shows enthusiasm but contains no content tied to the post (no specifics, questions, or conversation). Short emoji comments are common among genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement farms, or incentivized commenters because they are low-effort and broadly applicable. Given the extremely small sample (one comment) there is insufficient evidence to judge the audience quality or authenticity reliably. The moderately high fakeness score reflects the fact that single, context-free emoji comments are ambiguous and somewhat characteristic of inorganic engagement. For advertising decisions, this single comment is weak evidence of engaged, relevant followers. Recommendation: obtain the complete recent comment set, commenter account metadata (follower counts, posting history), timestamps, and overall engagement metrics (likes, saves, reach, comments per post) before proceeding. Run a bot/account quality audit (look for many short/formulaic comments, high follower:following anomalies, rapid repeated commenting) to improve confidence." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive compliment / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Provide social proof and endorsement (positive reinforcement of influencer and product); increase perceived desirability and encourage other viewers to engage or convert." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Woooow cette peau 😍! Ce masque a l’air incroyable 🙌') is a short, enthusiastic compliment with emojis and no specifics. Strengths: it signals positive sentiment and acts as social proof, which is useful in advertising contexts. Weaknesses / reasons for caution: the comment is generic and matches common templates used in engagement pods or fake/bot comments (no personal detail, no question, no mention of how the product was used or results). With only one comment provided, the sample is too small to confidently assess audience authenticity. The moderate fakeness score (40) reflects that the comment could easily be genuine (a real follower praising skin and product) but also fits patterns of inorganic engagement. Overall feasibility for advertising based solely on this comment is mediocre (50) — positive signal but insufficient evidence of authentic, high-quality engagement. Recommended next checks before buying ads: 1) inspect commenter account(s) for real profiles, posting history, follower/following ratios and engagement diversity; 2) analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts for recurring generic phrasing or comment timing clusters; 3) check like-to-comment ratios and watch for a mix of detailed, specific user testimonies or UGC-style comments; 4) review audience demographics and reach metrics. Without those checks, proceed with caution." }

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": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment toward the influencer (engagement/affection)." }, { "type": "Question / Information-seeking", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks whether the influencer appeared in a specific TV/movie ('Joséphine ange gardien'), seeking confirmation or starting a conversation." }, { "type": "Conversational / Relatable mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "References a relatable item (popcorn) to build rapport and keep the tone casual and friendly." }, { "type": "Direct mention / Tagging", "count": 1, "purpose": "Addresses the influencer directly using @ handle to get their attention and elicit a reply." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears organic and human-written: it uses colloquial French, emojis, a casual aside about popcorn, a direct tag, and a specific reference to a TV episode title. The comment's purposes are praise, engagement, and a question likely intended to prompt a reply. There are no signs of promotional language, repetitive generic phrases, or obvious bot patterns. However, this is only one data point—while it suggests some genuine audience interaction, it is insufficient alone to judge overall audience authenticity or the influencer's suitability for advertising. For a reliable advertising-feasibility assessment, analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter account characteristics (age, follower/following ratios, activity), comment timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and repetition across posts." }

Text: J’adore 🔥👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive praise / emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation and social approval; visible engagement signal to others (simple endorsement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"J’adore 🔥👏\" is a brief, positive, emoji-rich endorsement in French. Characteristics: very short, generic praise with emojis — these features are common in genuine spontaneous reactions but are also frequently produced by low-effort bots or engagement farms. Because only one comment is provided and no metadata (commenter handle, account age, follower counts, timestamps, or other comments) is available, the assessment is uncertain. The comment alone provides weak evidence of an engaged, genuine audience: it signals positive sentiment but not depth (no specific detail, no question, no personal reference). For advertising-buy decisions this sample is insufficient. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments, check for repeated/generic phrasing across comments, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (follower/following ratios, posting history, profile photos), compare comment volume to follower count and post likes, and analyze timing patterns. Based on the single comment, treat the engagement as low-confidence positive signal rather than strong proof of authentic, high-quality audience." }

Text: Grave 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/affective (short eyebrow/emoji reaction)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/affection and signal approval; small visible engagement to boost social proof." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Grave 😍') is available. This reads as a brief positive reaction (one-word + heart-eyes emoji) and is most consistent with ordinary organic micro-engagement. However, one comment is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity, audience quality, or commercial suitability. Short comments with emojis can be genuine but are also commonly produced by bots or low-effort accounts; therefore fakeness likelihood is low-to-moderate but assessment confidence is low. For an advertising purchase decision, this single data point gives little support — overall feasibility is limited until you review more data: full comment set, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), timestamp patterns, like-to-comment ratio, repetition of wording across posts, and demographic/engagement alignment with the target audience. Recommend collecting a larger sample of comments and account-level metrics before proceeding." }

Text: Larbin

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 75, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative/abusive", "count": 1, "purpose": "express hostility or insult (criticism/harassment). Likely a spontaneous negative reaction rather than promotional or supportive engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Larbin' — Russian for 'toady'/'lackey') is available. This is a clear negative/abusive remark, not a compliment, question, or call-to-action. Such a terse insult is more consistent with a genuine dissatisfied or hostile user than with manufactured promotional comments, so estimated fakeness is low (15/100) but confidence is limited because the sample size is one. For advertising feasibility: one isolated negative comment is not a strong signal against collaboration; it does not indicate widespread fake engagement or bot activity. However, the assessment confidence is low (30%) — you should request more data (full comment set, timestamps, commenter profiles, like-to-comment ratio, follower demographics, historical comment patterns) before a purchase decision. Recommended next checks: volume and diversity of comments across multiple posts, proportion of generic/praise comments vs. insults, whether the commenter is a real account (age, followers, activity), and engagement rate relative to follower count." }

Text: ahah j’adore 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive reaction / praise with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/enjoyment and signal approval; lightweight engagement and social validation" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"ahah j’adore 😂\" (French: \"ahah I love it\") is a brief, positive, emoji-enhanced reaction. It reads as a genuine, low-effort engagement intended to show amusement and approval rather than provide substantive feedback. Fakeness risk is low given the natural language and casual tone, but confidence is limited because this is only one comment and lacks broader context (other comments, comment timing, commenter profile). As a signal for advertising feasibility, one short positive comment provides minimal social proof — not sufficient to judge audience quality, engagement depth, or conversion potential. Recommendation: gather more data (total comments, likes, commenter accounts and histories, engagement rate relative to follower count, comment diversity and timing) before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: @youcefkanouni moi à chaque sortie 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal reaction / relatable remark", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses amusement and relatability (user says the content matches their own experience)." }, { "type": "Mention / tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tags another account to draw their attention or share the post, increasing organic reach." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment (@youcefkanouni moi à chaque sortie 😂😂) reads as organic, casual engagement: a first-person relatable reaction combined with a tag to involve a friend. It contains natural language and emojis, and offers no promotional phrasing or repeated generic praise typical of bot/fake accounts. Given only one comment to analyze, confidence is limited — the low fakeness score reflects the comment's natural tone, but is not decisive about the overall audience quality. For advertising feasibility this is a small positive signal (real, engaged follower behaviour), but you should assess a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), like-to-follower ratio, and comment diversity before purchasing ad space or partnering with the influencer." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive reaction; lightweight engagement with low informational content. Can serve to signal approval or camaraderie, but provides little evidence of genuine interest or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (five laughing emojis) is a low-information reaction. Emoji-only comments are common among genuine followers as quick responses, but they are also frequently produced by engagement pods and low-effort bot accounts. With only this example, authenticity is ambiguous — lean slightly toward genuine casual engagement but with notable uncertainty. For advertising feasibility this comment alone is not sufficient evidence of an engaged, conversion-ready audience. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments (look for questions, product mentions, tagged friends, longer text), engagement rate relative to follower count, commenter profile quality (age, activity, follower/following ratio), and comment timing patterns. If many comments are similar emoji-only or repetitive short replies from low-quality accounts, raise the fakeness score and lower suitability. Current assessment: low confidence signal; proceed with further due diligence before purchasing advertising." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Casual/familiar reply (joking)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Social engagement: lighthearted reaction about pay/salary, signalling familiarity or camaraderie; not promotional and not asking for a product/service." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"J’espère que t’as au moins 70% de la paie mdr\" (\"I hope you got at least 70% of the pay lol\"). This reads as an organic, informal, joking reply from a follower or acquaintance rather than a promotional or bot-like message. Fakeness risk is low because the language is specific, colloquial, and tied to a context (pay/salary) rather than generic praise or spam. However, a single comment is not enough evidence to conclude overall engagement quality or authenticity for ad decisions. The available signal is weak: there is little indication of audience interest in a brand/product, no calls to action, no multiple similar comments, and no other engagement metrics (likes, commenter profiles, timing). For advertising feasibility this comment is neutral-to-negative: it does not demonstrate a highly engaged, brand-interested community. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: obtain the full comment set and timestamps, commenter profiles (follower counts, account age, activity), like-to-follower ratios, comment growth over time, and look for patterns such as repetitive comments, generic compliments, or spammy language. With that broader data, a more confident assessment can be given." }

Text: Exploitage !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative/critical (one-word call-out)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express disapproval or accusation (calling out perceived exploitation or unethical behavior)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"Exploitage !\". This is short and ambiguous: likely a negative call-out accusing the account of 'exploitation' (French/English cognate) or calling attention to perceived wrongdoing. One-word exclamations tend to be organic rather than typical bot/spam patterns, so likelihood of fakeness is low but not negligible given lack of context. Alternate readings: a sarcastic compliment or trolling; a competitor or disgruntled follower; or a non-native phrasing. Because the sample size is one, confidence in any judgment is limited. For advertising decisions, this single negative/ambiguous comment is not decisive but signals potential reputation sensitivity. Recommended next steps before purchase: review a larger sample of recent comments (volume, sentiment distribution), inspect commenter profiles for authenticity, check engagement rate and timing patterns, and search for recurring complaints. Based on the current single comment, I would rate the post's immediate suitability for advertising as cautious/neutral (40/100) pending fuller comment and audience analysis." }

Text: C’est ou ?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / Inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for the location of the post (genuine curiosity / travel interest; potential intent to visit or contextualize the content)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'C’est ou ?' is a straightforward, short French-language question asking where the photo/video was taken. This is typical of authentic audience engagement rather than an obvious bot or promotional spam. Indicators supporting genuineness: natural phrasing, language-specific query, and content-relevance (asking about the location shown). Limitations: sample size is one comment — you cannot draw firm conclusions about overall audience quality or comment authenticity from a single item. For advertising feasibility this comment is mildly positive: it shows real user interest and location-based intent (useful for local targeting or travel-related promotions). However, more data is needed (volume of comments, like/comment ratios, diversity of commenters, timestamps, follower authenticity) to make a confident buy/no-buy decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or approval; low-effort engagement that increases visible comment count but provides no substantive feedback or purchasing intent signal." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a row of laughing emojis (😂😂😂). This is a low-information, low-effort engagement type: it signals that a viewer found the content amusing but gives no detail about sentiment strength, product interest, or audience demographics. With only one such comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge authenticity or the overall quality of the influencer's audience. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also easily produced by bots or engagement farms; therefore I assign a low-to-moderate fakeness probability (approx. 25%) with modest confidence. For advertising feasibility this single data point is weak — it neither supports nor rules out a worthwhile audience. I recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, the post's like counts, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), and engagement timing patterns before making a purchase decision. Also check for red flags: many identical emoji comments across posts, clusters of new/empty accounts, or sudden spikes in engagement." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 12, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Observational/Curious", "count": 1, "purpose": "Pointing out a behind-the-scenes detail and prompting discussion (rhetorical question / engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“On en parle de la troisième personne qui filme la vidéo”) is organic in tone: non-promotional, contextually tied to the content, and appears to be a genuine viewer noticing production detail. This suggests real, attentive viewers rather than bot-like or purely promotional comments. However, because only one comment is provided, the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall authenticity or audience quality. The low fakeness_score reflects that this comment looks genuine; the modest overall_score reflects limited available data for evaluating influencer suitability for advertising (engagement quantity, diversity of comments, follower quality and other signals are missing). Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, engagement metrics (likes, saves, comment growth), follower demographics, and look for repetitive wording or generic praise to better assess fakeness and ad-fit." }

Text: Maintenant je veux voir la vidéo moi 😂👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine engagement / curiosity", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal desire to see the video (request/curiosity), accompanied by emojis that signal amusement and approval — functions as engagement and a light CTA to post the video." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, \"Maintenant je veux voir la vidéo moi 😂👏\", reads as natural, informal French with personal phrasing and emojis. It is most consistent with a real user expressing curiosity and encouragement, not with typical bot or spam patterns (no generic praise, no brand links, no repeated templated text). Given only this one comment and no additional metadata (author profile, time, like count, other comments), confidence is limited. The low fakeness score reflects the likely authenticity of this individual comment, but this sample is too small to judge overall audience quality. For advertising feasibility: this single authentic-seeming comment is a neutral-to-slightly-positive signal of engagement, but insufficient evidence to approve ad spend. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for diversity and repetition, inspect commenter profiles for real followers and activity, check comment-to-like ratio and comment timing patterns, and look for clusters of templated language or duplicated comments. Based on current data, proceed with caution and request more comprehensive engagement data before making an advertising purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Observational / critical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Call-out of staged/performative behavior (meta-commentary about who is filming whom); expresses skepticism and highlights inauthenticity rather than promoting content." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided. It reads as a genuine, observational critique noting staged filming and a chain of filming among influencers. This indicates at least some audience members are attentive and skeptical about authenticity, which can reduce perceived credibility for advertising. Given the single data point, the fakeness estimate is low (10) — the comment looks organic — but confidence is moderate (60) because the sample is too small to generalize. The overall suitability for advertising is rated neutral (50) with low confidence (40); one skeptical comment does not by itself disqualify the influencer, but it raises a flag: before buying ads, analyze a larger sample of comments (volume, sentiment distribution, proportion of generic/emoji-only comments, timing patterns), examine commenter accounts for authenticity, check engagement rates vs. follower count, and review replies and conversation depth to assess real audience connection." }

Text: 💩💩💩

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "negative / trolling (emoji insult)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express strong dislike/disapproval; antagonize or provoke; lower perceived credibility of the post or creator" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (three poop emojis) is a clear negative reaction — short, non-specific and likely intended as an insult or troll. Emoji-only comments are low-information: they express sentiment but give no substantive critique. Authenticity: emoji-spam like this is often from a real user expressing dislike or from trolling accounts; with only one example it's difficult to prove bot/farm activity, so fakeness is assessed as low-to-moderate (25) with modest confidence (40). Impact: one negative emoji comment alone is not strong evidence against an influencer's suitability for advertising, but it does indicate at least some negative voices. For an ad buy decision you should analyze a larger sample: distribution of sentiment across comments, commenter account quality (age, followers, posting history), engagement rates vs. follower count, and presence of repeated identical negative comments (which could indicate coordinated attacks or inorganic activity). Given the single negative/trolling comment observed, the post is not disqualified for advertising on this basis alone — overall feasibility score 60 with low confidence (30) due to the extremely small sample of comments." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical/negative", "count": 1, "purpose": "express dislike / critique the influencer's 'show-off' ('m'as-tu vu') tone; likely authentic audience feedback rather than spam or promotion" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Je n'aime pas ce côté du : << m'as-tu vu ? >>\". This is a concise, negative, qualitative remark in French that criticizes a perceived showy attitude. It contains no promotional language, no repeated phrases, and no bot-like markers, so it appears authentic (low fakeness score). With a single data point it's impossible to generalize about the whole comment set or engagement quality. For advertising decisions this single negative comment signals potential brand-fit risk (some followers may view the influencer as ostentatious), but it is not decisive. I recommend collecting more comments and metrics (total comments, like-to-comment ratio, sentiment distribution, commenter account characteristics and timestamps) to assess overall authenticity and audience sentiment before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Trop drôle

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short generic positive comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/liking; low-effort engagement that signals positive reaction but adds little contextual information." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Trop drôle' ('So funny') is a brief, positive reaction. This type of comment is common and can be genuine, but it is low-effort and provides limited signal about audience quality or brand fit. With only one short generic comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge the authenticity of the influencer's engagement; the low fakeness score reflects that it could easily be real, but confidence is low because short generic comments are also commonly produced by bots or by casual browsers. For advertising decisions, request more data: a larger sample of recent comments, like/comment ratios over time, commenter account quality (profiles, followers, activity), and any conversational replies. Based on this single comment alone I would be cautious about committing ad spend — the post shows minimal meaningful engagement for assessing audience relevance." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressive/emotional reaction (laughter). Low informational value; primarily boosts visible engagement and signals audience amusement or approval. Could be genuine low-effort engagement or automated/generic comment." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: six 'laughing' emojis. This is a common, low-effort engagement type that indicates amusement or positive reaction but provides no substantive feedback about the influencer, product interest, or purchasing intent. With a single emoji-only comment there is insufficient signal to judge authenticity; such comments can be genuine (friends/followers reacting) or part of generic engagement patterns (bot farms, engagement pods). Given the minimal data, I assign a moderate fakeness score (40) with low confidence. For advertising feasibility this single comment is weak evidence — overall comment quality appears low and not useful for judging conversion potential (overall score 30, low confidence). Recommended next steps: obtain the full comment dataset across several posts, analyze commenter account metadata (age, follower counts, activity patterns), check for repeated identical comments across posts, look at timing patterns (many comments in short windows), comment-to-like ratios, and presence of substantive comments/questions that indicate genuine interest. These additional checks will greatly increase confidence in authenticity and ad-buy decisions." }

Text: 😂😂😂trop bien

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/emotive (emoji + short praise)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval; signal engagement and positive sentiment to other viewers" } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: \"😂😂😂trop bien\" is a brief, emoji-rich positive reaction in French ('so good'). This type of comment is commonly posted by genuine followers reacting informally; its content and form (language + emojis, not a generic marketing line) lean toward authenticity. Fakeness estimate is low (10/100) but based on only one data point, so confidence is moderate (70%).\n\nHowever, a single short positive comment provides very limited evidence about overall audience quality or influencer authenticity. It does not indicate depth of engagement (no question, no mention of product, no tagging, no conversational thread). For advertising purchase decisions this is weak signal: score 40/100 with low-to-moderate confidence (40%) because more data are needed.\n\nRecommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments, examine commenter profiles for real accounts vs. bots (profile completeness, posting history, follower counts), check comment patterns across multiple posts (repetition, timing), compare comment-to-like ratio, and look for meaningful interactions (questions, testimonials, saves/shares)." }

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": 8, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Enthusiastic engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses strong attention and repeated viewing — signals the content is sticky and captured the viewer's interest." }, { "type": "Humorous / personal anecdote", "count": 1, "purpose": "Adds personality and relatability (joke about using a microscope, difficulty focusing) — builds rapport with creator and other viewers." }, { "type": "Organic / non-promotional", "count": 1, "purpose": "No promotional phrasing, call-to-action, or generic praise typical of bot/generic influencer comments — appears to be a genuine viewer reaction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided (in French) reads as a genuine, human reaction: the commenter says they watched the clip at least 20 times, joked about trying to look at the first take under a microscope, and used casual punctuation and emojis (😅, 😂, 😆). These features — specific numeric detail, contextual humor, language nuance, and emoji use — are strong authenticity signals and inconsistent with typical mass-produced bot comments (which tend to be short, generic, promotional, or templated). Given that, the fakeness score is low (8/100) with reasonably high confidence.\n\nHowever, this analysis is based on a single comment. That limits what can be inferred about the overall audience quality or the post's comment feed (e.g., ratio of genuine to fake, repeat commenters, bot networks, geographic alignment with target customers). For ad-buy feasibility: this comment is a positive signal (content engages viewers and elicits natural reactions), but it is insufficient alone to recommend a buy. Recommended next checks before purchase: sample 100–200 recent comments for patterns, examine commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history, avatars, bios), check like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns (many comments within seconds/minutes may indicate inorganic activity), and audience demographics vs. campaign targets." }

Text: Non mais je suis fan fan fan 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive praise / admirer", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm and admiration; functions as social proof and positive sentiment boosting the post's perceived popularity." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Non mais je suis fan fan fan 😍') is a brief, enthusiastic praise with an emoji; this pattern is common from genuine fans but can also be produced by low-effort bots or engagement pods. Given its informal French phrasing and expressive emoji, it leans toward genuine (hence a low fakeness score), but the sample size is one so confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility, this lone positive comment provides some social proof but is insufficient to judge authentic audience engagement or purchasing intent. Recommended next steps: analyze volume and diversity of comments, commenter account quality (age, followers, posting history), timestamps (sudden bursts), presence of conversational replies, and likes per comment. If multiple similar short praises appear from low-activity accounts, fakeness risk increases and ad spend should be reconsidered or tested on a small scale first." }

Text: 😂😂 Excellent

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short_positive_reaction (emoji + brief text)", "count": 1, "purpose": "express approval/enthusiasm and generate visible engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('😂😂 Excellent') is available. This is a low-information, generic positive reaction that commonly appears from real followers but is also typical of engagement pods and low-effort bot comments. With one example it's impossible to reliably distinguish genuine from inorganic interaction—hence a modest fakeness score and low confidence. For advertising feasibility, this comment alone provides weak evidence of meaningful audience engagement. Recommend collecting additional data before purchase decisions: comment volume and variety, timestamps, commenter profiles (follow ratios, activity), like counts, story interactions, and reach metrics. If the broader comment set shows many similar short/generic reactions from low-quality accounts, confidence in poor authenticity would increase and the overall ad suitability would decrease." }

Text: Thanks for laugh sister 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Appreciation/Positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enjoyment and gratitude (social reinforcement / positive feedback to the creator)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Thanks for laugh sister 😂😂\". It reads as a brief, positive, likely genuine reaction from a follower (uses informal address 'sister' and emojis). This is low-effort engagement that provides some social proof but little depth — it does not indicate strong purchase intent, detailed product interest, or sustained engagement. Fakeness risk is low (score 10) because the phrasing and emojis look natural rather than templated, but confidence is moderate due to the extremely small sample size and lack of contextual metadata (poster/follower relationship, timestamp, comment repetition, account characteristics). Overall suitability of this post for advertising decisions is limited (overall score 35) because one lightweight positive comment does not demonstrate a meaningful engaged audience or conversion likelihood. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, comment-to-follower ratio, comment timestamps, commenter account quality (follower counts, bios, prior activity), and engagement patterns across multiple posts before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick expression of amusement/approval and low-effort engagement to signal activity and potentially boost post visibility." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three laughing emojis (😂😂😂). Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can be genuine, low-effort responses from real followers, or generic engagement from bots or fake accounts. With only this one short reaction there is very little signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or organic community engagement. For influencer advertising decisions this is insufficient evidence. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments and other engagement metrics (likes, saves, comment diversity, commenter account authenticity), check comment timing and repetition patterns, inspect commenter profiles for real followers and behavioral signals, and calculate comment-to-follower and like-to-follower ratios. Based solely on this single emoji comment, the comment set looks weak for proving authentic audience engagement, so proceed cautiously before purchasing ad placements." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses appreciation/liking with no substantive feedback; low information value for audience insight." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is present: a heart emoji. This is a lightweight, positive engagement that can come from genuine followers, casual viewers, or automated/low-effort accounts. With one generic emoji there is insufficient evidence to judge authenticity confidently. The comment provides no product-related feedback, no questions, and no audience segmentation signals. For advertising feasibility this sample is uninformative: engagement exists but is low-quality signal. Recommended next steps: check overall comment volume and diversity across multiple posts, compare likes-to-comments ratio, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), look for repeated short comments or patterns across posts, review timing (sudden bursts), and request audience demographics from the influencer. Based on the single emoji, I rate comment fakeness risk as modest (30/100) and overall suitability for ads as below average (40/100) but both assessments have low confidence due to the extremely limited data." }

Text:

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 0, "fakeness_confidence": 0, "overall_score": 0, "overall_confidence": 0, "comment_types": [ { "type": "no_comments", "count": 0, "purpose": "Нет предоставленных комментариев — невозможно классифицировать типы комментариев." } ], "interpretation": "Не предоставлены тексты комментариев или ссылка/скриншот поста, поэтому провести анализ невозможно. Пожалуйста, пришлите: 1) текстовые комментарии (или экспорт/скриншоты), 2) количество лайков и просмотров поста, 3) временные метки (если есть). При наличии данных я проверю признаки фейковости: повторяющиеся фразы/эмодзи, односложные общие похвалы (\"🔥\",\"😍\",\"love\"), массовые упоминания брендов/ссылок, одинаковые временные интервалы публикаций комментариев, профили комментаторов (без аватаров, новые аккаунты, нулевой контент), несоответствие тональности комментариев и содержания поста, соотношение лайков к комментариям и долю органических реакций. Эти признаки позволят оценить вероятность ботов/купленных комментариев, вовлечённость реальной аудитории и релевантность для рекламной покупки. Отправьте данные — выполню детальный разбор и дам оценки фейковости и пригодности для рекламы с указанием уверенности." }

Text: The first one though 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short reaction / emoji comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or preference (positive reaction) and minimally engage with the post; likely conversational and meant to react to a specific slide or moment." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'The first one though 😂'. This is a brief, humour/emoji-based reaction likely referring to the first item in a multi-part post (carousel or video). Such comments are common organic responses from real followers and typically indicate a genuine, spontaneous reaction rather than a scripted promotional message. However, with a single short comment there is very limited signal: we cannot see patterns (repeated phrasing, account similarity, timing bursts) that would indicate coordinated or fake engagement. The low fakeness score (15) reflects that this single comment appears authentic, but confidence is moderate because a single data point is weak evidence. The overall suitability for advertising is scored low-moderate (35) with low confidence (25) because one short comment does not demonstrate sustained, meaningful engagement or audience quality. Recommendation: before deciding on ad spend, analyse a larger sample of comments and metrics — commenter account audits (age, follower/following ratios), comment timing patterns, like-to-comment ratio, impressions and saves, and look for clusters of repetitive comments or bot-like accounts." }

Text: 👣😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive reaction/affection (admiration). Low informational value; often used by casual followers, fans, or automated engagement actors." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists solely of two emojis (footprints + heart-eyes). That signals positive sentiment but provides no substantive engagement (no questions, no reference to the product/content). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine casual followers but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement pods—hence a moderate estimated fakeness score. Given the single data point the confidence is low. For advertising feasibility this comment alone is weak evidence of genuine, purchase-intent engagement: it shows sentiment but not intent or depth. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments (volume, diversity of comment types), inspect commenter profiles (follower counts, account age, profile photos, posting history), check temporal patterns (many similar emoji comments in short time windows), and compare comment-to-like ratios to typical benchmarks before making an ad buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Product inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking for the jeans reference/model (information request; signals product interest and possible purchase intent)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Quelle est la réf du jean svp ? :)') is a direct, specific product inquiry and reads as organic user interest rather than a generic or promotional bot comment. Fakeness is judged very low because the phrasing is specific and conversational. This indicates some real purchase intent — positive for advertising consideration — but the sample size is extremely small. For a reliable buy decision, analyze a larger set of comments, overall engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), comment diversity (questions vs. generic praise), timing patterns, and follower quality. Based on this one comment alone the post shows product interest but not enough volume to strongly validate influencer effectiveness." }

Text: First one kinda ate tho🔥😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive casual praise (slang)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/enthusiasm for the content; signal engagement and informal endorsement" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'First one kinda ate tho🔥😂' reads as a natural, colloquial human reaction: 'first one' (early commenter), 'kinda ate' (slang for performed well), plus fire and laughing emojis to amplify positive tone. This makes it unlikely to be a templated bot/spam comment, so fakeness risk is low for this comment specifically. However, this is only one short comment — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or meaningful engagement for advertising decisions. Recommended next steps before buying ads: inspect comment volume and diversity, timing patterns, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. throwaway/bot indicators), like-to-comment ratios, and look for repetitive/generic comments across posts. Based on this lone comment, I would not treat the post's comments as strong evidence of an authentic, highly engaged audience; further analysis is required." }

Text: 🦶🏼👅

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (🦶🏼👅)", "count": 1, "purpose": "low-information engagement; likely attention-seeking / flirtatious or sexually suggestive. Could be from a real follower trying to react, a troll, or a bot/engagement pod post designed to inflate visible interaction." } ], "interpretation": "There is only one visible comment and it consists solely of two emojis (foot + tongue). That provides very low signal about audience quality or authenticity. Emoji-only comments are commonly used by genuine followers for quick reactions, but they are also frequently produced by bots, troll accounts, or engagement pods because they require minimal effort and are non-topical. Given the single data point, I judge a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness score 60) but with only medium confidence. For advertising decisions this single comment is insufficient: if the rest of the comment stream resembles this (many short/emoji or repeated comments), that would indicate low-quality engagement and reduce the influencer's value for brand-safe, meaningful campaigns. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments for diversity and substance, check for repeated commenter accounts, compare comment-to-follower and like-to-comment ratios, audit follower growth patterns, and request audience demographics and story view metrics before purchasing advertising." }

Text: Hahaha the first one 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "reaction/engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/positive feedback; indicates the commenter found a specific item in the post funny (emotional reaction), uses emoji to reinforce tone." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Hahaha the first one 😂') reads as a genuine, low-effort positive reaction — an emotional response to content rather than a promotional, spammy, or repetitive message. With only one comment available, assessment of overall comment authenticity or community quality is very limited. The short, specific reference to 'the first one' suggests the commenter actually viewed the content, which slightly decreases the likelihood of it being fake, but short generic reactions are common both organically and in low-effort paid/engagement farms. For advertising feasibility this single data point is weak evidence: it shows some real audience amusement but does not demonstrate scale, audience relevance, conversion intent, or healthy engagement patterns. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments for diversity and specificity, check commenter profiles for real accounts (age, posting history, follower counts), compute engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), look for repetitive/generic phrases, timing patterns, and ratio of unique commenters to total comments." }

Text: I watched this so many times

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short personal-engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses repeated viewing and enjoyment; signals engagement to the creator and algorithm (visibility/validation)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"I watched this so many times.\" This is a short, personal engagement statement that likely indicates genuine interest (first-person phrasing, past-tense, specific behavior). However, short generic comments can also be produced by low-effort accounts or bots, so there is moderate uncertainty. Given the single datum, the fakeness score is modest (30/100) with limited confidence (40/100). For advertising-feasibility assessment the evidence is insufficient: one engaged viewer is a positive signal for content quality but says nothing about audience size, diversity, conversion intent, or repeat engagement patterns. Overall feasibility is therefore middling (45/100) with low confidence (35/100). Recommended next steps: collect more comments and their timestamps, check comment authors' profiles (follower counts, activity, post history), look for comment repetition or identical phrases across posts, measure likes-to-comments ratio, look for replies and comment likes, and compare against follower count and average post engagement. These checks will materially improve confidence in authenticity and ad-buy decisions." }

Text: 😂😂😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 20, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement or positive affect; lightweight engagement without substantive feedback or intent to convert." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it is an emoji-only reaction (five laughing emojis). Emoji reactions indicate some engagement and a positive emotional response but provide no information about audience quality, purchase intent, or trust. Such low-effort comments are common from genuine followers as well as from automated/bulk-engagement accounts; given the single short emoji the likelihood of it being organic is higher than it being a paid/bot comment, but certainty is limited. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient evidence: engagement depth and meaningful interactions are absent, so I rate overall suitability for ad purchase low. Recommend collecting more comments, likes, follower demographics, recent engagement rates, and examples of conversion-driving comments before making a buying decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Conversational / tagged reply", "count": 1, "purpose": "Social interaction — playful/humorous response addressing another user, not promotional; intended to engage and amuse" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (@estel_lau jamais nous car on préfère rester avec nos koala 🐨 😂) is a casual, playful reply in French that tags another account and expresses a personal preference. It reads as organic, conversational engagement rather than a promotional or bot-generated message. Given only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Positives: specific language, direct tag, emojis and humor suggest a real human. Negatives/unknowns: single data point — cannot assess volume, sentiment distribution, or prevalence of low-effort/spam comments. For advertising feasibility this one comment mildly supports the idea of an engaged, authentic audience (hence a moderate overall score), but you should analyze a larger set of comments, like replies per post, like-to-comment ratios, follower quality, and audience demographics before a purchase decision." }

Text: @ma_rouxxxx

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user_mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging/mentioning another account — to notify a friend, draw someone's attention, or to drive engagement (can also be used by engagement pods/bots)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided and it is a bare username mention (@ma_rouxxxx). Tag-only comments are low-information: they frequently indicate a genuine user drawing a friend’s attention, but they are also commonly used by engagement pods and automated accounts to inflate comment counts. With one mention-only comment there is very little signal about audience authenticity, comment quality, or real engagement. For advertising decisions this is insufficient evidence to deem the audience authentic or highly engaged. Recommendation: obtain the full comment set (diversity of comments, sentiment, replies, timestamps), overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), and examples of commenter account profiles before making a purchase decision. Based on the single mention, I would not recommend proceeding with an ad buy without more data." }

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": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "critical/sarcastic organic reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express mild criticism and humor; comment on social expectation (thanking for watching children) and engage with the post in a relatable, joking way." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment reads as an organic, mildly critical and humorous reaction (French, uses laughing emoji). It does not show common signs of fake engagement (no generic praise, no emojis-only flood, no promotional links, no obvious bot patterns). The language is specific to the post content and reflects a personal viewpoint, implying a real human behind it. However, this is a single data point — insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality for advertising. To form a reliable advertising-feasibility decision, analyze: larger comment sample, commenter account profiles (age, followers, activity), repetition/duplication across comments, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and topical relevance of comments. Given current limited evidence I rate comment fakeness low (10/100) but give only moderate confidence, and an overall feasibility score of 55/100 with low-to-moderate confidence due to insufficient sample size." }

Text: La vrai vie 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive reaction / brief compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration or emotional reaction; social validation (supports post, adds positive sentiment). Not promotional or request-driven." } ], "interpretation": "Один короткий комментарий «La vrai vie 😍» — это позитивная, эмоциональная реакция. По форме и содержанию он выглядит как искренний лайк-заменитель или комплимент (общая поддержка), а не как рекламный, спамный или транзакционный комментарий. Уровень подделки оцениваю низким, но доверие ограничено — один комментарий слишком мало для уверенных выводов о составе аудитории или качестве вовлечения. Для решения о покупке рекламы нужно больше данных: количество комментариев/лайков, разнообразие и временные паттерны комментариев, профиль комментаторов (реальные подписчики или пустые аккаунты), соотношение органического и явно промо-контента. На основании только этого комментария целесообразность рекламы — низкооценочная/неопределённая." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "эмоциональная реакция/реакция на контент; низкоинформативный комментарий, может выражать искренний смех или служить для имитации активности (бот/паб/взаимные лайки)." } ], "interpretation": "Имеется лишь один комментарий — «😂😂😂». Такой эмодзи-комментарий даёт очень мало сигналов о реальной вовлечённости аудитории: он может быть искренней реакцией на юмор поста, либо низкоинтеллектуальной отметкой от бота/пула взаимной поддержки. На основании единственного короткого комментария высокий уровень фальшивости вероятен в среднем (оценка 60/100), но уверенность низкая, потому что выборка слишком мала. Для оценки рекламной целесообразности этих комментариев недостаточно данных: отсутствуют содержательные отзывы, вопросы, повторяющиеся аккаунты, метрики охвата и соотношение комментариев к подписчикам. Рекомендации: запросить полный набор комментариев за последние публикации, уникальные комментаторы, временную динамику, соотношение лайков/комментариев, демографию подписчиков и образцы других типов комментариев. Пока что по комментариям оценка пригодности для рекламы низкая (35/100) с низкой уверенностью." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "friend_tag + expressive_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging a friend to draw their attention and communicate amusement/relatability (uses colloquial slang 'ptdr' and laughing emojis) — indicates organic, interpersonal engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is in French and reads roughly as '@clem_mamancomblee rofl that's so us!!' with laughing emojis. It is a personal, colloquial reply that tags another user, which is a common sign of genuine audience interaction rather than automated or purchased comments. There are no generic compliments, repeated phrases, links, or promotional language that typically indicate bot activity. Given only one comment to analyze, the assessment of fakeness is low (score 10) with moderate-to-high confidence that this particular comment is authentic. However, a single data point is insufficient to judge the overall authenticity or advertising-worthiness of the influencer's audience. For a reliable decision about buying ads, analyze a larger sample of comments, look for patterns of duplicate/generic comments, timing consistency, commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts), and overall engagement rate relative to follower size. Current overall suitability for advertising is uncertain to slightly below average (score 45) because while this comment is organic, there is not enough evidence of broad, high-quality engagement." }

Text: @teiiha t’es dispo quand ? 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention / personal tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Directly addressing another user to coordinate or joke (asking 'when are you available?'). Conversational, friend-to-friend interaction rather than promotional engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a personal tag in French (@teiiha t’es dispo quand ? 😂), asking about availability with a laughing emoji. This reads as a genuine, conversational exchange between acquaintances rather than a generic praise, call-to-action, or bot-like comment. Fakeness is assessed low because it is specific, includes a user handle, and serves a clear interpersonal purpose. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising purchase decisions, a single personal comment is a mild positive signal of real social connections, but you should review a larger set of comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, and overall engagement rate to confirm authenticity and relevance to your target audience. Recommended next steps: analyze 100–200 recent comments, check for repeated templated comments, inspect commenter accounts for profile completeness and reciprocal interactions, and compare comment-to-like ratios." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 20, "overall_score": 20, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive engagement / expression of affection or approval. Low information content — typically used to signal ‘like’ rather than provide feedback or intent to act." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a heart emoji. This is insufficient data to draw confident conclusions. A lone heart is common and can be genuine casual engagement, but it is also a frequent generic/bot reply; therefore I assign a modest probability of being fake. There are no contextual signals (commenter account info, timing, multiple similar comments, repetitive text, or conversational replies) to evaluate authenticity or audience quality. For advertising feasibility this single emoji provides very weak evidence of an engaged, relevant audience — it neither demonstrates product interest nor meaningful conversation. Recommendation: obtain the full set of comments, commenter usernames and profiles, timestamps, like counts, total post impressions, follower quality metrics, and examples of substantive comments (questions, mentions, tagged friends, product discussion). With that data a more reliable fakeness assessment and an overall recommendation for ad purchase can be produced." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (applause)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short, low-effort positive reaction intended as social approval or encouragement; provides social proof but no information about purchase intent or audience relevance." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a pair of clapping-hand emojis — a low-information, positive-engagement signal. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine casual followers but are also commonly produced by engagement pods, low-effort fans, or automated/bot accounts. Given the minimal sample size, I rate the likelihood of inauthenticity as moderate (60) but with low-to-moderate confidence (45) because one emoji comment alone is not strong evidence either way. For advertising decisions this comment provides very weak support: it indicates some baseline positive engagement but gives no insight into audience demographics, purchase intent, or comment depth. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of recent comments (50–200), inspect commenter profiles for follower counts/activity, check for repeated identical comments across posts, compute engagement rate (likes, saves, shares vs followers), and use automated authenticity checks if available. Based only on this single comment, overall suitability for advertising is low to moderate (40) with limited confidence (40)." }

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": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Direct reply to the post (or to another commenter) with a brief personal anecdote and light humor; signals casual engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (French: \"Non ça va je suis raisonnables sauf une fois et c'était la faute d'un avion😉🙂\") reads as an informal, human response: uses first person, emojis, a small grammatical slip ('je suis raisonnables') and a humorous anecdote ('it was the airplane's fault'), which all point toward organic engagement rather than bot-like or promotional behavior. There is no call-to-action, no generic praise, no marketing language. Given only one comment sample, the dataset is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or community engagement level for advertising decisions. The low fakeness score reflects that this particular comment appears genuine, but the low overall score and confidence indicate insufficient comment volume and diversity to reliably assess audience quality. Recommendation: analyze a larger set of recent comments (quantity, variety, reply chains, account profiles of commenters, timing) and compare comment-to-follower and like-to-comment ratios before making an advertising purchase decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Notifies or pulls another user into the conversation (@cha_chrlne). Suggests interpersonal engagement or directing attention." }, { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses emphasis/feeling (pinched-fingers 🤌🏼 repeated). Serves as lightweight positive/expressive engagement rather than substantive feedback." }, { "type": "opinion/critique", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short text opinion: 'no compassion pour Patrick et Woogun' — conveys a negative or unsympathetic stance toward named individuals, indicating sentiment/polarization among commenters." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available. It combines a direct mention, repeated expressive emoji, and a brief negative opinion about two named people. The content looks organic (natural language in French, context-specific names, and a conversational mention) rather than templated or spammy. Because sample size is one, confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility: there is evidence of real audience interaction (mentions and expressive emojis), but the sentiment can be polarized and there is insufficient volume or variety of comments to assess overall community tone, engagement rate, or audience authenticity. Recommend gathering a larger set of recent comments, engagement metrics (likes, replies, follower quality), and post history before a buy decision. Current quick-read verdict: moderately favorable for testing an ad placement (score ~55) but with low-to-moderate confidence and a need for deeper analysis." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 70, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "product inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask for product reference / details about the dress (shopping intent)" }, { "type": "positive sentiment / compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration (emoji conveys liking, supports influencer image)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Bonjour quel est ma référence de la robe de Caroline 😍'. This reads as a genuine follower asking for the product reference (likely a SKU/brand/model) and includes a positive emoji, indicating real interest and purchase intent. Fakeness is judged low (10/100) because the message is specific, in natural language, and asks for actionable information rather than posting generic praise or obvious marketing phrases. Confidence in that fakeness estimate is moderate-high (75/100) but limited by the extremely small sample size. Overall suitability for advertising is moderately good (70/100) because the comment shows product interest—useful for conversion-driven campaigns—but a single comment is not sufficient to assess overall audience quality. Recommend obtaining more comments, checking comment timestamps, user profiles (age, follower counts, activity), distribution of comment types, and looking for repeated/generic comments to better detect bot activity before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: Ah ouai !!!! 🤣 @maariondrs

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "reaction + mention", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and tag/notify another user (likely to draw their attention to the post); short informal engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Ah ouai !!!! 🤣 @maariondrs') appears organic: informal language, emoji, and a tag suggest a real user reacting and notifying a friend. Low likelihood of being bot-generated or a templated promotional comment. However, this is only one comment — too small a sample to judge overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising feasibility, this indicates at least some real interpersonal engagement, but you should examine a larger set of comments, comment timing, commenter profiles (followers, activity), like-to-comment ratio across multiple posts, and presence of repeated/identical comments to better assess fake engagement. Based on this single comment, the post shows organic micro-engagement but insufficient evidence to support strong ad investment." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort engagement to express amusement or approval (reactional feedback). Could be genuine follower reaction, playful response, or generic/bot activity using emojis." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three laughing emojis (\"😂😂😂\"). This is a low-information, low-effort engagement type that commonly appears in both genuine and inorganic comment sets. Strengths: it signals some positive reception (amusement) and increases visible engagement. Weaknesses: it provides no qualitative insight about the audience, purchase intent, or authenticity; emojis are frequently used by bots and by casual real users alike, so they are a weak signal for assessing audience quality.\n\nFakeness rationale: assigned a moderate fakeness score (40/100) because emoji-only comments are overrepresented in inorganic engagement but are also extremely common from real followers. Confidence in that judgment is low (30/100) due to the single-comment sample and lack of commenter account data (follower counts, posting patterns, comment repetition, timestamps).\n\nOverall assessment for advertising feasibility: with only one emoji comment, there is insufficient evidence to recommend proceeding or to reject the influencer for advertising. The overall score (45/100) reflects that the available comment neither supports nor strongly undermines feasibility — more data is required. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity signals (profile photos, follower/following ratios, posting history), measure overall engagement rate (likes, saves, shares), look for repetitive or templated comments, and analyze timing patterns. Without that additional context, any decision would be speculative." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction (low-effort positive)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/affection and increase visible engagement count; low informational value about purchase intent or genuine interest." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“😍😍”) is a low-effort positive reaction. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers as quick endorsements, but they are also frequently produced by automated/bot accounts or coordinated engagement services because they are easy to generate in volume. With only one comment and no context (commenter profile, timestamp, other comment patterns, like counts, follower data), authenticity is ambiguous — hence a moderate fakeness estimate (45) with low confidence (30). For advertising purchase decisions this comment provides minimal actionable signal: sentiment is positive, but there is no demonstration of product interest, purchase intent, or a pattern of engaged, specific responses. Overall I rate the comment-set (this single comment) as low-to-moderate value for assessing influencer suitability (overall_score 40) with low confidence (30). Recommended next steps: examine a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter accounts (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), check for repeated identical comments across posts, look at engagement rate vs follower count, and request influencer metrics (reach, saves, link clicks) before making ad buy decisions." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (❤️)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive reaction / affective endorsement with no substantive information (signals approval or affection)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('❤️') is available. Emoji-only comments are common for genuine followers who want to quickly show support, but they are also frequently produced by low-effort bots, engagement pods, or purchased comment packages. Given the lack of contextual data (no commenter profiles, timestamps, comment volume, or other comment variety), the fakeness assessment is uncertain. The comment provides very low informational value about audience quality or intent. For advertising feasibility: this single, non-specific positive reaction is not a reliable indicator of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommendation: inspect commenter accounts (age, follower counts, activity, avatar, bios), comment frequency and diversity across multiple posts, overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to followers), timing patterns, and presence of repeated identical short comments. Those checks will materially improve confidence before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort positive reaction / express affection or approval; signals engagement but contains no substantive feedback or conversational content." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment provided and it consists of two heart emojis. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort bot accounts or engagement pods. With this lone data point there is very low signal: it indicates some positive sentiment but no information about user intent, authenticity, or relevance for advertising. Given the uncertainty, treat this as weak evidence of engagement. For an advertising buy decision, request more data (total comment volume, diversity of comment content, commenter account quality and history, timings, like-to-comment ratios, and repeated/comment patterns) before relying on this post's comments. Recommended actions: analyze a larger sample of comments and commenter profiles to better judge authenticity and audience fit." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval; low informational value. Often used to signal support quickly and to inflate visible engagement; can originate from genuine followers, passive users, or automated/paid-engagement accounts." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is an emoji-only expression of approval (clapping + fire). On its own it provides very weak evidence about audience quality or authenticity. Emoji-only comments are common among real followers who want to show quick support, but they are also common outputs of bots, engagement pods, and low-effort paid commenters. Given only one such comment, I rate the chance it's fake as moderate (60/100) with moderate uncertainty (50/100). For advertising purchase decisions this comment is low-value: it inflates engagement visibility but doesn't indicate intent, niche relevance, or purchase propensity. Recommend expanding analysis to: (1) examine the full comment corpus for repetition, identical emojis/text, or many short generic comments; (2) check commenter account maturity (followers, content, activity); (3) review timing patterns (many comments in short bursts); and (4) compute engagement metrics (engagement rate, meaningful comment ratio). If many comments mirror this pattern, treat audience as lower quality for direct-response ads; if most comments are substantive and diverse, confidence in audience quality rises." }

Text: C’est si beau 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration for the post and provide lightweight engagement (social approval / encouragement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"C’est si beau 😍😍\" is a brief, positive, French-language compliment with emoji. It appears natural and likely genuine at the individual level (short, context-appropriate language and emotive reaction), but it is generic and provides little signal about the commenter’s relationship to the influencer or any real purchase intent. With only one comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. If the full comment set is dominated by similarly short generic compliments or emoji-only replies, that pattern can indicate low-depth engagement (fans or passive commenters) — and in some cases may be consistent with inorganic/comment-farming behavior if combined with other red flags (many comments from newly created accounts, repetitive phrasing, clustered timestamps). For advertising feasibility: this single comment neither supports nor strongly undermines a buy decision. Recommended next steps before buying ad placement: sample more comments, check commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, language consistency), look at like-to-comment ratio, comment diversity (questions, personal references), comment timestamps, and any saved/DM metrics or conversion data from past partnerships. Based on the present single-comment sample, I assign a low fakeness estimate but only moderate confidence, and a cautious overall suitability score for advertising." }

Text: 🔥👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express praise/enthusiasm and provide surface-level engagement (social proof). Low informational or transactional intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided and it is emoji-only (🔥👏). Emoji-only comments are common, easy to post, and can come from genuine followers or from low-effort/bot accounts; they raise engagement metrics but convey very little about purchase intent or audience quality. With only this input there is high uncertainty: the presence of a single positive emoji provides modest social proof but is insufficient to assess authenticity or ad suitability. Recommendation: do more checks before buying ads — examine comment diversity (longer, conversational comments), commenter profiles (real accounts, follower counts, posting history), comment timestamps (burst patterns), like:comment ratio, and overall engagement rate on multiple posts. Based on the one comment, advertising feasibility is indeterminate — slightly positive signal but low reliability." }

Text: Bravoo👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short compliment / encouragement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive social feedback to the poster — expresses approval (social validation). Could be genuine follower praise or a generic/bot-like compliment intended to inflate engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"Bravoo👏\". This is a brief, generic positive remark that provides very little signal about audience authenticity or meaningful engagement. Such comments are commonly posted by both real followers and automated/bot accounts; without additional context (commenter username, account age, follower count, comment timing, patterns across other posts) the authenticity is ambiguous. The moderate fakeness score reflects the commonality of short generic praise among fake accounts; the relatively low confidence reflects the severe lack of data. For advertising decisions, these comments alone are insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter profile(s) for indicators of real accounts (profile photo, posts, followers, follow ratio), analyze comment volume and variety across multiple posts, check like-to-follower ratio and comment recurrence, and run a broader engagement authenticity audit before committing ad spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express encouragement and positive reaction to the post; signals genuine emotional engagement from a follower." }, { "type": "Product inquiry / information request", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asks where the 'camelback' is from — shows specific interest in a product visible or mentioned in the post, indicating potential purchase intent or research behavior." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is natural-language, specific, and interactive: it combines praise with a direct question about a product (camelback). This pattern is typical of genuine follower engagement rather than bot/generic comments, so estimated fakeness is low (around 10%). The comment indicates audience interest in the influencer's gear, which is a positive signal for product-focused advertising (people asking where to buy). However, this analysis is based on one comment only; it cannot capture overall audience quality, volume, or consistency. For an advertising decision you should evaluate: (1) comment volume and variety across multiple posts, (2) ratio of substantive comments to generic ones, (3) commenter account quality (real profiles vs. bots), (4) engagement rate (likes + comments relative to followers), and (5) historical performance on sponsored posts. Given the single, specific, and relevant comment, the post shows some potential (overall score 60) but more data is required to make a confident ad-buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Motivational", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reinforcement of the influencer's persona — builds social proof and encourages continued posting." }, { "type": "Product interest / Intent to try", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses intent to try the recommended brand, indicating potential conversion interest and genuine engagement with the promoted product." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (“T’es tellement motivante !! Il faut que je testes cette marque 😍”) reads as a genuine, positive engagement: it is personalized (direct praise), includes an emoji, and states intent to try the brand. The minor typo ('testes') and natural phrasing increase the likelihood the comment is from a real follower rather than a bot or paid generic commenter. Fakeness risk is low (score ~10), but confidence is limited because this is a single data point. For advertising feasibility this is a cautiously positive signal — the audience appears receptive and shows product interest, but one supportive comment is insufficient to conclude overall audience quality. Recommend further checks before purchase: examine a larger sample of comments for repetition or generic language, review commenter account authenticity (profile age, follower ratio, activity), assess comment-to-like ratio across multiple posts, and check comment timestamps for burst patterns. Based on available information, this post provides a modestly favorable indication (overall score 65) for advertising consideration, but collect more comment and follower data to raise confidence." }

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": 75, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal action + appreciation", "count": 1, "purpose": "Follower reports taking a concrete action inspired by the influencer (signed up for a 13 km trail with 530 m elevation), expresses excitement and gratitude — serves as social proof and positive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears authentic: it contains specific details (distance and elevation), personal phrasing, emojis, and a direct attribution of inspiration to the influencer. Purpose is to show appreciation and to announce a follower's real-world action, which functions as valuable social proof for the influencer's ability to motivate their audience. For advertising feasibility this is a positive signal — at least one follower reports behaviour change attributable to the influencer, suggesting influence in the running/trail niche. However, assessment is limited by the small sample (only one comment). Before buying advertising space, request broader engagement metrics (overall comments distribution, recurrence of similar action-oriented comments, commenter account quality — age, follower count, posting history), comment timing patterns, and the influencer's average engagement rate and audience demographics. Also check for clusters of near-identical comments or many generic compliments (possible indicators of inauthentic engagement). Based on this single comment, the post shows promising genuine engagement, but a reliable purchasing decision should rely on more comprehensive comment and audience analysis." }

Text: Tu gères 🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "compliment / short positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and provide quick positive engagement (social support and social proof). Likely intended to signal approval and boost visibility via likes/replies." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment \"Tu gères 🔥\" is a brief, colloquial French compliment with an emoji. Characteristics: natural language, not templated or overtly promotional, no links or hashtags, and typical of genuine follower interaction. Given only one comment, there is limited signal: the content leans genuine rather than bot-like, but quantity and depth of engagement are too low to conclude robust, organic audience activity. For advertising decisions this comment alone is weak evidence of an engaged community — it indicates positive sentiment but not sustained interaction, conversion intent, or targeted audience interest. Recommendation: review volume, variety, commenter accounts (profiles, follower counts, comment timing, repetition across posts) and metrics (like-to-comment ratio, saves, story interactions) before making ad purchase decisions." }

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": 80, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "User troubleshooting / practical advice", "count": 1, "purpose": "Offer a specific, experience-based solution for a product issue (hydration bladder noise), signal genuine usage and helpful engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a natural, specific troubleshooting tip in French (flip the bladder and suck out the air) with a friendly emoji — characteristics typical of a real user rather than a bot or paid promotion. It contains concrete, product-specific content and no generic praise or marketing language, which reduces likelihood of being fake. However, this is only one comment: low sample size limits confidence about the wider audience authenticity or engagement level. For advertising decisions, this comment is a positive signal of real user experience and useful community interaction, but you should verify volume, diversity, and temporal patterns of comments (more similar authentic replies, responses from the influencer, ratio of likes to comments) before relying on this account as a strong channel for ads." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive engagement/acknowledgement — expresses support or affection but conveys no information about interest in a product or intent to purchase; commonly used by real followers, engagement pods, and low-effort bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single heart emoji comment. This type of comment provides very low signal about audience quality or purchase intent. Because emoji-only comments are frequently used both organically and by engagement farms/pods, there is a moderate probability the comment could be non-genuine (hence the fakeness score ~55) but confidence is low due to extremely limited data. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient evidence of authentic, conversion-ready engagement: there are no questions, product references, tagging of friends, or substantive replies that would indicate interest or influence. Recommended next steps before buying ad/partnership: request a larger comment sample across multiple recent posts, inspect commenter profiles for real activity (profile pictures, posting history, follower counts), compare likes-to-comments ratio, check for sudden follower spikes or repetitive short comments, and ask for audience demographics, reach, saves, and story interactions. Based on the single emoji comment alone, treat the influencer's engagement as weak signal and require further audit before committing to advertising spend." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive praise / brand endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses genuine liking for the brand and excitement about retail availability (promotes brand awareness and positive sentiment)" } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment to analyze: a French-language, enthusiastic endorsement mentioning the brand and that it is now available at Sephora, with a heart-eyes emoji. Specifics (brand + retailer) and the emotive phrasing suggest an actual customer or follower expressing genuine approval rather than a generic spammy comment. The short sample size limits certainty — it could still be planted (e.g., from an engaged fan account or paid commenter) but there are no clear automated or templated markers. Given the available evidence, comment fakeness is low-to-moderate (20/100) with moderate confidence. For advertising purchase decisions the signal is mildly positive but insufficient alone: overall score 50/100 reflects a tentative go/no-go — recommend deeper checks (comment volume and diversity, commenter account authenticity, engagement rates, comment timestamps, repeated phrasing across posts, and follower quality) before committing budget." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple positive sentiment/attraction (praise or approval). Often used to show quick engagement or boost visible activity; may be genuine fan response or low-effort/bot engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment consisting of two heart-eyes emojis indicates positive sentiment but carries very little diagnostic information. Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine followers (quick praise) and from bots/engagement pods (low-effort engagement), so the probability of being fake is moderate, and confidence is low given the single datum. For advertising decision-making this comment alone is weak evidence of an engaged, high-quality audience. Additional checks are needed before purchasing ads: comment volume and diversity across the post, repetition of identical short comments, commenter profile inspection (age, activity, follower count), comment timestamps (burst patterns), overall engagement rate relative to follower count, and presence of substantive comments or conversations. Based on this single emoji comment, I recommend not using it as a positive signal on its own; perform the listed follow-up checks for a reliable assessment." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (❤️)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple positive reaction/affection or approval; low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction but carries little informational value. Common from genuine followers, casual browsers, or automated/mass-engagement accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of a heart emoji is available. Emoji-only comments are low-effort engagement: they signal a positive reaction but provide no purchase intent, product feedback, or meaningful conversation. Such comments are commonly posted by genuine followers as quick approval, but they are also used by bots and engagement farms because they are easy to mass-produce. Given the single data point, I judge a modest probability of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 30) but with low confidence (35) because there is insufficient context (no commenter profile data, timestamps, volume, or other comment patterns). For advertising feasibility: this single emoji does not provide evidence of strong, actionable audience interest; score is low (40) with low confidence (30). Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter account quality (age, followers, posting history), engagement rates (likes, saves, shares), timing patterns, and look for meaningful comments or conversation before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment / quick praise; low informational content and low signal about genuine engagement depth" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two heart-eyes emojis (\"😍😍\"). This is a generic positive reaction typical of lightweight engagement. Such comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or mass-liking/commenting services because they require no effort and look authentic at a glance. Given the extremely small sample (one comment) there is high uncertainty: the moderate fakeness score reflects that short emoji reactions are ambiguous and relatively easy to fake. The low overall score reflects that this comment provides virtually no evidence of meaningful, authentic audience engagement (no substantive text, no questions, no user-specific content). For an advertising purchase decision you should not rely on this single short emoji as proof of an engaged audience. Recommended next checks: overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), diversity and content quality of other comments, commenter profile inspection (real-looking accounts vs. bot indicators), history of recent posts, and reposts or saves metrics if available." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/support (likes/affection). Boosts visible engagement metrics but carries little informative value about purchase intent or audience quality." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of three heart emojis was provided. This indicates positive sentiment but is low-information: it signals basic engagement (the post elicited a like-like reaction) but not audience enthusiasm, relevance, or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by casual accounts or bots; given the limited sample, there's moderate uncertainty about authenticity. For advertising purchase decisions this comment alone is weak evidence in favor of the influencer — it improves superficial engagement metrics but does not demonstrate meaningful audience interaction, detailed feedback, or conversion likelihood. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check commenter profiles for follower counts/activity, analyze like-to-comment ratios, look for diverse, specific comments and replies, and watch for patterns of repetitive/generic comments that indicate bot activity. Based on this single comment, I would not rely on the engagement as strong validation for ad spend." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only_positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive reaction/attraction. Low-effort engagement that boosts visible activity but gives no substantive feedback; can be posted by genuine followers or by automated/generic engagement accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: four heart-eyes emojis. Emoji-only comments typically indicate a positive reaction but are low information. Such comments are common both from real engaged followers (quick praise) and from engagement farms/bots (generic reactions). With this single data point I assess a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 45) but with low–moderate confidence because there is insufficient context (no commenter account data, no additional comments, timestamps, or like counts). For advertising feasibility: this comment alone neither supports nor strongly undermines a purchase decision—it shows some positive sentiment but provides no evidence of audience quality, relevance, or conversion potential. Recommendation: request broader comment sample, commenter profiles, engagement rate, follower quality, and interaction diversity before deciding. If many comments are similar emoji-only from accounts with low follower counts or suspicious patterns, lower the ad spend priority; if comments are varied, specific, and from real-looking accounts, the influencer is more suitable." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/affection; acts as low-effort positive engagement (social signaling). Provides no topical feedback or purchase intent; can be from genuine followers or from bots/engagement pods." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment and it consists solely of repeated heart emojis. This is low-information positive engagement: it shows approval but gives no insight into audience relevance, interest, or conversion intent. Emoji-only comments are common among real fans but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or purchased comment packages, so the probability of inauthenticity is moderate (estimated fakeness ~45%) with substantial uncertainty. For advertising purchase decisions this comment alone is insufficient evidence of a high-quality engaged audience. Recommended next steps before buying: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for diversity and specificity, inspect commenter accounts (age, follower counts, activity), check overall engagement rate vs follower count, examine timing patterns (many similar comments posted simultaneously), and request audience demographics or platform analytics from the influencer. If most comments look like this, downgrade confidence in audience quality and negotiate safeguards (trial post, guaranteed metrics, or third-party audit)." }

Text: 🔥🙌🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction (low-effort generic praise)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval and provide superficial engagement (social proof) without substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"🔥🙌🔥\". This is an emoji-only, low-effort engagement that signals positive reaction but conveys no specific information about intent to purchase, product sentiment, or audience quality. Emoji comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement-farming accounts; with a single example there is moderate suspicion of non-human or low-value engagement (fakeness_score 40, confidence 55). For advertising feasibility this comment alone is insufficient evidence of a responsive, valuable audience. Overall, the comments sample indicates weak actionable social proof (overall_score 45, confidence 40). Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments, commenter handles, comment timestamps, and engagement metrics (likes, saves, follower demographics, engagement rate) to assess authenticity, audience relevance, and conversion potential before purchasing ad space." }

Text: La qualité est superbe !

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive praise / testimonial", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short compliment about product quality — provides social proof/engagement and can function as endorsement, but is generic and offers no concrete detail." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('La qualité est superbe !') is a brief, positive endorsement in French. On its face it supports the influencer's product quality, but its generic wording and brevity make it ambiguous: it could be a genuine satisfied follower or a generic/fabricated comment (bot, paid commenter, or incentivized). With only one comment provided, the sample is far too small to draw firm conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience engagement. For advertising-purchase decisions, this item alone is weak evidence of real, persuasive engagement. Recommended next steps: review the full comment set for the post and other posts (look for repetition, similar phrasing across many comments), analyze commenter accounts (age, follower counts, activity, profile completeness), check like-to-comment ratios and timeline of comments, and look for more substantive testimonials (details, user photos, questions). If multiple comments are similarly generic or come from low-quality accounts, treat the post as likely to have inflated/inauthentic engagement and lower its value for paid partnerships." }

Text: Wowwww 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive / emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment; adds apparent engagement / social proof but provides no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Wowwww 😍😍😍😍') is a short, highly positive emoji reaction. This type of comment is common both from genuine followers and from low-effort bot or purchased-comment accounts. It contributes to visible engagement (likes/comments count) but provides no signal about real audience interest, purchase intent, or depth of community. Given only one comment to analyze, I rate the probability it is not genuine at moderate (60) with moderate confidence (50) because the text pattern is frequently used by automated or incentivized commenters, but could equally be a real enthusiastic fan. Overall suitability of the post’s comments as evidence for ad-buy decisions is low (overall score 40, confidence 50): the comment quality is weak, offering little insight into audience relevance or conversion potential. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, examine commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, comment patterns), check like-to-comment ratios and comment timing, and run an authenticity check (e.g., look for repeated phrases, clusters of new accounts) before using this influencer for advertising." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment with referral/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive praise of the product/content + directing readers to a tagged account (could be a genuine recommendation or a promotional/spam tag)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment reads as a generic positive endorsement (“La qualité à l’air génial !”) combined with tagging another account (@r.e.n.o.r.g) and an emoji. This pattern is commonly seen in low-effort genuine praise but is also frequently used by spammers or paid promoters who aim to drive traffic to a different account. Minor grammatical errors do not rule out a human commenter but lower the signal quality. Given only one comment to evaluate, I rate the likelihood of inauthenticity as moderately high (70) with moderate confidence (65%).\n\nFor influencer-advertising decisions: this isolated comment is not strong social proof. The presence of referral tags in comments is a red flag — it can indicate a comment section seeded with promotional posts or third-party account promotion rather than real audience engagement. I give an overall suitability score of 45 (confidence 60%). Recommendation: before purchasing ads with this influencer, examine a larger sample of comments for patterns (repeating phrases, repeated tags, commenter account quality), check commenters' profiles for authenticity (activity, followers, posting history), compare engagement rates to follower count, and ask the influencer for organic reach / past ad performance metrics." }

Text: Jen veu un 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "product interest / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses desire to have the product (purchase intent) and gives positive sentiment via heart-eyes emojis." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Jen veu un 😍😍\" appears to be a short, positive remark likely meaning \"J'en veux un\" (French for \"I want one\"). It signals product interest and favourable sentiment (two heart-eyes emojis). With only one short comment, this is weak evidence of genuine, engaged audience interest: short emoji-rich comments are common from real followers but are also commonly generated by low-effort bot accounts or engagement farms. Given the brevity and lack of contextual signals (no user metadata, timing, or other comments), I assess a low-to-moderate probability of authenticity (fakeness score 25) but with moderate uncertainty (confidence 45). For advertising purchase feasibility, this single comment is insufficient to recommend investment — the overall assessment is cautious (score 35) with moderate uncertainty (confidence 40). To improve confidence, review full comment set, commenter profiles (age, followers, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, comment timestamps and repetition patterns, and language consistency across comments." }

Text: Et la qualité 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Brief praise / compliment with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment about product quality (social proof). Short, enthusiastic endorsement likely intended to praise the post and signal approval to others." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Et la qualité 😍'. This is a short, positive remark (praising quality) with an emoji. Such comments can be genuine micro-engagement from a real follower, but they are also typical of low-effort or bot-driven comments used to inflate apparent engagement. Given the single-sample nature of the data, the assessment is highly uncertain. The comment provides limited signal: it is positive (which is good for advertising) but lacks specificity (no product details, no personal experience) and therefore carries weaker persuasive value as social proof. Recommended next steps before deciding on ad spend: (1) analyze a larger sample of recent comments for variety, specificity, and conversational replies; (2) inspect commenter profiles for red flags (new accounts, no profile photo, repetitive usernames/comments); (3) check engagement ratios (likes vs. comments, follower count vs. engagement) and timing patterns; (4) look for repeated identical comments across posts. Based on this lone comment, the post shows mild positive sentiment but is inconclusive for reliable organic advocacy — proceed with caution and request a deeper authenticity audit before purchase." }

Text: Canon 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Brand mention / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration or brand preference (short praise + emoji). Could be an organic fan reaction, quick endorsement, or low-effort engagement (e.g., from a casual follower or engagement pod)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: \"Canon 😍\" (Russian/word + heart-eyes emoji). This is a short, positive brand-mention indicating admiration or product interest. Short single-word comments with an emoji are common among genuine followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort bots, engagement pods, or mass-comment campaigns. With only this single data point, it's not possible to confidently determine authenticity or the overall health of the account's engagement. \n\nImplications for advertising feasibility: this comment alone is weak evidence of real, high-value audience engagement. It signals potential brand affinity but not depth (no questions, no conversation, no user account context). I recommend a broader audit before purchase: analyze comment volume and diversity, commenter account attributes (age, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and presence of meaningful discussion. Based on the single comment, I give a cautious, below-midline feasibility score (45/100) with low confidence." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal greeting / celebratory", "count": 1, "purpose": "Offer well-wishes and social support; low-effort engagement to acknowledge the post (maintain relationship/friendliness rather than promote or solicit)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a personalized New Year greeting in French («Bonsoir bonne année 2026 à toi») with multiple emojis. Its phrasing ('toi' = 'to you') and varied emojis make it more likely to be a genuine human message rather than a templated bot spam, hence a low fakeness score. However, a single benign greeting gives minimal information about overall audience quality or commercial value: it is non-promotional, low informational value for advertisers, and does not demonstrate purchase intent or influential advocacy. Recommendation: do additional checks before deciding on ad spend — analyze volume and diversity of comments across multiple posts, commenter account authenticity (age, follower/following ratio, activity), repetition of identical comments, timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios. With only this comment, influencer ad suitability is uncertain, so the overall assessment is cautious/low." }

Text: Et au resto 🤭😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "casual personal reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "social engagement / humour — a short, context-specific reply referencing being at a restaurant, using emojis to convey tone and familiarity" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: 'Et au resto 🤭😂' (French: 'And at the restaurant'). It reads as a genuine, lighthearted reaction rather than a generic spammy or promotional line. The use of language specific to the post and expressive emojis suggests a real follower responding in context. However, the sample size is one comment, which provides very limited signal about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. Fakeness risk for this specific comment is low (score 15), but confidence is moderate because one comment is insufficient to generalize. For advertising feasibility, this single comment neither supports nor strongly undermines a purchase decision — social proof appears low due to minimal comment volume. Recommended next steps: collect more comments across multiple posts, examine commenter accounts (follower counts, activity, profile completeness), check like-to-comment ratios, temporal patterns (sudden spikes), and presence of templated/repeated comments. Based on current evidence, consider a cautious approach: request more engagement data before committing significant ad spend." }

Text: 😍😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (positive)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive engagement / emotional response (likes, amusement). Low-effort interaction to show approval or entertain, increases visible engagement metrics without substantive content." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is two generic positive emojis (😍 and 😂). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort engagement services to inflate numbers. On its own this comment provides very little signal about audience authenticity, sentiment depth, or brand fit. Given only emoji content, I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood (around 60/100) but with low-to-moderate confidence because there is no account context, timestamps, or additional comments to analyze. For an advertising decision you should not rely on this alone: inspect the full comment set for variety (questions, tagged friends, long-form praise or criticism), check commenter account quality (profile photos, follower counts, posting history), comment-to-like ratios, timing patterns, and follower growth anomalies. Based on this single low-effort comment the post's engagement quality looks weak, so treat the influencer as a moderate-to-high risk for paid promotions until broader engagement authenticity checks are completed." }

Text: 😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/approval and provide lightweight engagement/social proof (low informational value about purchase intent)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a pair of laughing emojis. This is a low-effort, positive reaction that increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback, intent signal, or audience insight. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also trivial to generate by bots or engagement pods, so the fakeness assessment is uncertain (moderate likelihood of being organic but plausible as manufactured). For advertising feasibility this comment alone is weak evidence: it shows some positive sentiment but no conversation, questions, or indicators of purchase intent. Recommendation: evaluate additional metrics before purchasing (overall engagement rate, number and diversity of comments, comment-to-follower ratio, follower quality, recent post performance, and audience demographics)." }

Text: J’en rêve ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / Desire", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration or longing for the product/experience; signals positive sentiment and potential interest but low informational value about intent or behavior." } ], "interpretation": "Comment text (French): \"J’en rêve ❤️\" — translates to \"I dream about it\" with a heart emoji. This is a short, positive, aspirational reaction that likely indicates enthusiasm or desire. On its own it is low-information: it signals favorable sentiment but not concrete intent (no mention of purchase, tagging, or engagement beyond a brief reaction). Fakeness risk is modestly low because the phrasing and emoji are typical of genuine users, but such short, generic comments are also commonly produced by bots or coordinated engagement, so certainty is limited. For advertising feasibility this single comment is encouraging but insufficient: you need more comments, variety in comment content, commenter profile checks (real-looking accounts, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns, and overall engagement rate relative to follower count. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments and commenter metadata, check for repetitive short comments across posts, and compute engagement authenticity signals before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: ❤️❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_only", "count": 1, "purpose": "generic positive reaction/affection; low informational value. Emoji-only comments are commonly used by genuine followers to show support but are also frequently produced by bots or purchased engagement to inflate visible activity." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three heart emojis (❤️❤️❤️). This provides very limited signal. Emoji-only engagement indicates positive sentiment but carries low audience quality information — it does not demonstrate interest in product intent, conversation, or purchase behavior. Such comments can be genuine (fans quickly expressing affection) or synthetic (bot farms and like/comment pods use short emojis). Given the lack of additional context (commenter profile, timing, volume and diversity of other comments, follower counts, likes, or engagement patterns), the fakeness assessment is uncertain. For advertising feasibility: emoji-heavy/comment-light sections reduce confidence that comments represent an engaged, conversion-ready audience. Recommend further checks before buying ads: sample commenter accounts for authenticity (profile age, posts, followers, follow ratio), review a larger set of comments for diversity and substance, compare comment-to-like ratio, and inspect recent follower growth and story view rates. If most comments on the post are similar emoji-only from low-quality accounts, treat as a negative signal for ad spend; if they come from known, active followers, the risk is lower." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement / quick engagement without substantive feedback (low-effort positive/neutral reaction)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment (\"😂😂😂\") is available, which limits the reliability of any assessment. Emoji-only comments are common as genuine quick reactions but are also frequently used by bots or engagement farms because they require no context and are easy to scale. Given the single instance: plausibly authentic but equally plausible low-effort or automated engagement. This comment provides no useful audience insight for ad targeting (no demographics, no purchase intent, no product feedback). For advertising-feasibility decisions, this sample is insufficient. Recommended next steps before purchase: audit a larger sample of comments and their timestamps, review commenter profiles for authenticity (followers, posting history, profile photos), compare comments-to-likes ratio, look for repeated identical comments or patterns, and check story/DM engagement and conversion metrics. Based on current limited evidence, I rate the post's comments as low-quality signal for ad purchase." }

Text: 🥰🥰🥰

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief positive reaction/support (expresses affection or approval). Low information content — could be a genuine fan reaction, habitual follower behaviour, or low-effort/bot engagement (engagement pod or purchased comments)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a three-heart/affection emoji sequence. Emoji-only comments are positive but non-specific and are common both among real followers and low-effort/bot accounts. With a single data point there is insufficient evidence to judge authenticity or audience quality reliably. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji-only reactions are often seen in inorganic engagement, but the confidence is low because context is missing (total comments, commenters' profiles, timing, repetition, follower counts, like-to-comment ratios, and conversation depth). For advertising feasibility: this single emoji comment indicates some positive sentiment but provides no signal of purchase intent, meaningful engagement, or audience relevance. Recommend collecting more comments and metadata (comment volume and diversity, repeated usernames, comment timestamps, follower-to-engagement ratios, and sample commenter profiles) before making a buy decision." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive endorsement / brand praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Defend and praise DJI's strategy by highlighting a technical strength (obstacle-avoidance), which reinforces credibility and positions the brand as competent." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is a concise, specific praise of DJI's strategy, referencing a technical capability (obstacle avoidance). Its specificity reduces the likelihood of being generic bot spam; it reads like a genuine, knowledgeable endorsement or a brand supporter. However, one comment is an extremely small sample for assessing audience authenticity or sentiment. For advertising feasibility: the comment is a positive signal but insufficient alone — verify commenter account (history, follower count, activity), look for recurring similar comments, overall comment/like ratio, timing patterns, and broader engagement quality across many posts before deciding. Based on this lone comment, I rate fakeness low-moderate (20) with moderate confidence and give a cautious, below-mid overall suitability score (40) with moderate-low confidence due to limited data." }

Text: 😂😂😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (laughing)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressive engagement / amusement. Low informational value, not indicating purchase intent or meaningful audience sentiment." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single low-effort comment (three laughing emojis) is available. This indicates some engagement but provides no substantive signal about audience quality, interest in products, or influencer credibility for advertising. Such emoji-only comments can be genuine casual reactions or produced by bots/inorganic accounts; given the lack of context the probability of falseness is moderate (fakeness_score 30). For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient evidence — overall assessment is low (25) because there is no meaningful conversation, purchase intent, or identifiable engaged audience. I recommend analyzing a larger sample: distribution of comment types, proportion of substantive comments, commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns, and recurring commenters. Also check for repeated emoji-only comments across posts (bot pattern) and the quality of DMs/CTA responses if available." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive product endorsement (short, brand-specific)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise/recommendation — highlights product strength (suction). Could be organic praise or a short promotional comment." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single, brief positive comment praising DJI robot vacuums for strong suction. Characteristics: brand mention, generic superlative language, no personal detail, no emojis, no questions, and no engagement signals (likes or replies shown). These features raise moderate suspicion of being promotional/seeded or generic influencer-brand reply, but it could also be a genuine satisfied user. Given only one comment and no contextual metadata (commenter profile, account age, comment timing, repetition across posts), certainty is limited. Recommendation: verify the commenter(s) profile(s) and look for patterns across multiple posts (repeated phrasing, clusters of similar comments, low follower counts) before relying on this post as evidence of authentic audience engagement for ad buys." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Testimonial / Product praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express personal satisfaction with the product (quiet operation), serving as social proof." }, { "type": "Comparative endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Contrast this product with a competitor (Ecovacs) to highlight a specific advantage (noise level)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, positive user-style testimonial: it highlights a concrete benefit (very quiet; can run at night) and compares the product favorably to a named competitor. These specifics lower the likelihood of outright fabrication, but the sample size is one and the phrasing is brief and promotional-sounding, so there remains moderate uncertainty. For ad-purchase decisions this comment is a mildly positive signal of product appeal but insufficient on its own. Recommend verifying the commenter account (age, past activity, follower pattern), checking for many similar short/templated comments, engagement rates, and a larger sample of authentic user feedback before relying on this influencer for advertising spend." }

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": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine engagement / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enjoyment of the video and makes a specific cultural reference (Buster Keaton), indicating personal reaction and emotional engagement." }, { "type": "Product endorsement / promotional praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Highly positive statement about a product (robot vacuum) that functions as a recommendation; could be an organic endorsement from a user or subtle promotional content." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment shows a mix of traits. Positive signals for authenticity: a specific reference to Buster Keaton (personalized reaction), natural sentence structure and fluent French, no links or obvious spam syntax. Signals raising suspicion: strong, unqualified product praise that could be promotional or incentivized. With only one comment, evidence is limited — the comment is more likely genuine than fake but promotional intent cannot be excluded. For advertising decisions, this single data point is insufficient: it suggests the audience may include product-interested users, but you should review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (history, follower counts, posting patterns), and comment timestamps to detect patterns of inorganic engagement before relying on this influencer for paid campaigns." }

Text: DJI👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "brand mention / short emoji endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval or association with the brand (DJI). Could be an authentic quick praise from a follower, a short affiliative comment from an enthusiast, or a low-effort promotional/spam comment intended to promote/associate with the brand." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('DJI👍') is available. Its brevity and brand name + emoji pattern are ambiguous: it may be a genuine quick praise or a simple brand mention from a bot/spam account or affiliate. With no additional comments, user profiles, timing, or engagement context, it's impossible to confidently classify as authentic engagement. The presence of only one generic comment indicates very low comment-driven social proof on this post, which weakens the case for ad-buying based on organic engagement. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments and account-level engagement metrics (like follower quality, commenter account activity, comment timestamps and repetition patterns) before making purchase decisions." }

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

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive reaction / compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enjoyment of the post/content and signal a favorable attitude toward the product/content." }, { "type": "Purchase intent / interest", "count": 1, "purpose": "States intention to buy or try a specific product mentioned (the 'robot'), useful for conversion signals." }, { "type": "Humor / emoji-driven engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Uses emojis and playful language to show emotional reaction and to increase engagement/visibility." } ], "interpretation": "The comment (French) reads roughly: 'I love it 😂 I'm going to cave for the robot ... definitely not the rabbit par😂'. It appears organic: informal phrasing, laughing emoji, a small typo/extra token ('par😂') and a concrete personal reaction/purchase intent. These traits reduce the likelihood of it being automated or templated. However, this is a single comment sample — positive and potentially conversion-oriented but insufficient to judge overall audience quality or the influencer's comment authenticity and engagement patterns. For advertising feasibility this single comment is a favorable signal (real engagement and product interest) but you should examine a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity), timestamps, repetition across comments, like counts on comments, and engagement rate relative to follower size before making a buy decision." }

Text: J’adore tes idées 😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive/compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and provide social proof / engagement. Low informational value and low direct purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, \"J’adore tes idées 😍😍\", is a brief positive reaction with emojis. Such comments can come from genuine followers but are also commonly produced by low-effort accounts or engagement farms because they are generic and reusable across posts. With only this one comment and no commenter metadata (account age, follower count, comment timing, repetition across posts, language consistency), authenticity cannot be confidently determined. Practical implications for advertising: this comment provides minimal evidence of a highly engaged, purchase-ready audience. It signals liking/affinity but not intent, loyalty, or meaningful conversation. Recommendation: inspect the commenter profile(s) (followers, past comments, profile picture, posting history), look for patterns of repeated generic praise, measure variety and depth of comments across the post (questions, detailed reactions, tagged friends), check like-to-comment ratios and comment timestamps, and analyze several posts to judge consistency before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: J’aime bcp le scénario 😁🐰

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive/genuine praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval of the post content (likes the scenario) — provides social proof and signals engagement from a real user." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is short, specific ('le scénario'), uses natural language, an informal abbreviation ('bcp') and emojis, which are typical of genuine audience reactions — hence a low fakeness score. However, one comment is insufficient evidence to judge overall engagement quality or audience authenticity for advertising decisions. To increase confidence, examine more comments, timing patterns, like-to-follower ratio, follower profiles, and comment diversity. Based on this lone comment, the post shows a bit of genuine positive engagement but does not provide strong proof of an engaged, authentic audience for ad purchase." }

Text: 👏👏❤😘😘😘

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort expression of support/affection (applause/hearts/kisses). Primarily to increase visible engagement; provides no substantive feedback about content." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided and it consists solely of emojis (👏👏❤😘😘😘). This is a low-information, low-effort engagement signal. Emoji-only comments frequently come from casual followers or can be automated/bot activity — there is no textual content to validate authenticity, intent, or genuine interest in the product/service. Given just this data point, I rate the likelihood of fakeness as moderate (50) with moderate confidence (55) because emoji comments are ambiguous. For advertising-purchase decisions, this comment alone is weak evidence: overall suitability score is low (30) with moderate confidence (50). Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter accounts (age, follower counts, posting history), comment timestamps (burst patterns), and engagement ratios (likes per follower, comment-to-like ratio) before making a buying decision. If most comments are emoji-only or repetitive, treat engagement as low quality and request additional verification (audience analytics, story views, saved/shares data)." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 70, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_support", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort expression of approval/support; primarily serves to boost engagement metrics and algorithmic visibility rather than to communicate substantive interest or intent." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single low-information comment: a heart emoji (\"❤️\"). Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine quick-reacting followers and from automated/purchased engagement. Alone they do not indicate meaningful audience interest, purchase intent, or authentic endorsement. Given only this comment, the signal quality is poor and prone to being artificially generated or part of engagement padding. For an advertising decision, this constitutes weak support for influencer effectiveness. Recommended next steps before buying ads: review the full comment set for volume and variety, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (age, follower counts, posting history), check timing patterns (many identical comments in short time = suspicious), and compare like-to-comment ratios and follower-to-engagement ratios. Based on the single emoji comment, treat the engagement as low-quality and proceed with caution." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/enthusiasm and boost visible engagement without substantive content; can be either genuine fan reaction or low-effort/bot engagement depending on context." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment is a short, emoji-only expression of enthusiasm (clapping, hearts, fire). As a signal it is weak and ambiguous: such emoji comments are common from real followers (quick praise) but are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts or engagement pods and by bots. Key factors that would change the fakeness assessment are missing: commenter profile (age, follower/following ratio, prior activity), whether many other comments are identical, timing (burst behavior), and overall comment diversity. Given only this one comment I rate fakeness modestly below neutral (45/100) but with low confidence (30/100) because the evidence is minimal. Overall suitability for advertising cannot be judged from this single comment (overall score 50, confidence 25). Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments (types, content, timestamps), inspect commenter profiles for authenticity, measure comment-to-like ratio and conversational replies, and check for repeated identical comments across posts before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/support (low informational content). Can be genuine quick praise from a follower or generic engagement used to inflate apparent activity." } ], "interpretation": "Единственный комментарий — два сердечка — это низкоинформационный позитивный отклик. Такие эмодзи-комментарии часто оставляют реальные подписчики в знак поддержки, но их также часто используют в ботах, пулах взаимной активности или для имитации вовлечённости. На основании одного такого комментария нельзя надёжно судить о подлинности аудитории или о качестве вовлечённости для рекламной покупки. Рекомендации: проверить повторяющиеся шаблонные комментарии, профили комментаторов (активность, фотографии, посты), распределение комментариев по времени и общий коэффициент вовлечённости поста/аккаунта. Без дополнительной выборки и метаданных относиться к этому сигналу как к слабому и ненадёжному при принятии решения о покупке рекламы." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥 Bravo 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive / emoji praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express simple approval/enthusiasm and increase visible engagement; low informational value. Could be a genuine quick reaction from a follower or a low-effort/bot comment used to inflate engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('🔥🔥🔥 Bravo 🔥🔥🔥') is a brief, high-energy praise using emojis. These types of comments are common, low-effort, and often appear both from real followers and from inorganic sources (bots or engagement farms). With only this single comment, it's not possible to reliably determine authenticity: the short form and repetitive emojis slightly increase the likelihood of inauthenticity, but many genuine fans also leave identical reactions. For advertising decisions, this comment alone provides minimal evidence of deep, authentic audience engagement. Recommendation: examine multiple comments, commenter account quality (profile age, follower count, posting history), timing/patterns of similar comments across posts, and like-to-comment ratios before making buy/no-buy decisions." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses approval/support; low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction but gives no qualitative information or purchase intent" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a repeated clapping-hands emoji (\"👏👏👏\"). Emoji-only comments are common, quick signals of approval and are often left by genuine followers, casual viewers, or engagement-boosting accounts/bots. With a single short emoji we cannot reliably distinguish between an authentic fan reaction and low-quality/fake engagement. Because the comment provides no substantive feedback or intent (no mention of product, experience, or questions), it is weak evidence for advertising effectiveness on its own. The relatively high fakeness score reflects the typical use of emoji comments by bots or low-effort accounts; the low confidence scores reflect the extremely limited sample size. Recommendation: before buying advertising, request a more complete comment dataset and engagement breakdown (comment volume, variety, timestamps, commenter account quality, repeat commenters, follower overlap and growth patterns) and run checks for bot-like behavior (many identical short comments, accounts with no profile picture or few followers, comment timing clusters). Those data will allow a more reliable assessment of authenticity and ad-fit." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji applause (clapping emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reaction / encouragement / low-effort engagement signaling approval or support" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a string of clapping emojis. Emoji-only comments are common and indicate positive sentiment, but they carry very little information about genuine interest, purchase intent, or deep engagement. Such comments can be posted by real followers as quick praise, by casual browsers, or by automated/bot accounts that are programmed to leave generic positive reactions. Given only one comment and no context (commenter profile, timing, repetition across posts, or mix of comment types), the assessment of authenticity is highly uncertain. For advertising-buy decisions, this comment alone is a weak signal; advertisers should look for more substantive comments (questions, personal experiences, product mentions), diverse commenter profiles, consistent organic conversation, and reasonable comment-to-follower ratios. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter accounts for real profiles and activity, check timing patterns (sudden bursts), and compare engagement rates to niche benchmarks. Based on the single emoji comment, I rate the likelihood of inauthenticity moderate (fakeness_score 35) but with low confidence, and the post's comment evidence for ad-buy suitability below average (overall_score 45) with low confidence." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Surface-level positive engagement / social proof. Signals approval or excitement but contains no substantive feedback — could be from a genuine follower, a low-effort fan, or an automated/paid engagement account." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment consisting solely of three fire emojis (\"🔥🔥🔥\"). This is an ambiguous, low-information signal: it indicates positive sentiment but lacks specificity, making authenticity uncertain. Emoji-only comments are commonly produced by genuine quick-reacting followers but are also frequently generated by engagement pods, micro-influencer networks, or simple bot accounts because they are easy to mass-produce. Given only one comment, there is insufficient data to assess overall audience quality or engagement authenticity. For advertising-buy decisions, this should be considered a weak/neutral signal. Recommend additional checks before buying: analyze a larger comment sample across multiple recent posts, inspect commenter profiles for real photos/follower counts/activity, check comment diversity and conversation, verify consistent engagement rates (likes/comments relative to follower count), and look for patterns of repeated short/formulaic comments. Based on the single emoji comment, I assign a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity and low confidence in this assessment; do not rely on this alone when evaluating the influencer for ad spend." }

Text: 😍😍😍🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji reaction (positive)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/admiration and increases visible engagement; low informational value about intent or purchase behavior." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment composed solely of positive emojis (hearts/heart-eyes and flames). Emoji-only comments are common and can come from genuine fans, casual followers, or automated/bought-engagement accounts — they provide social proof but little actionable signal about audience quality or purchase intent. With only one comment and no metadata (commenter profile, account age, follower count, comment timing, or patterns across posts), authenticity cannot be reliably determined. Therefore the fakeness estimate is neutral (around 50) with low confidence. For advertising decisions this comment alone is weak evidence: it indicates some visible positive reaction but does not demonstrate real interest, reach, or conversion potential. Recommendation: inspect commenter accounts for red flags (generic handles, no posts, very high followings with low engagement), analyze comment patterns across multiple posts, check engagement rate and audience demographics, and request deeper metrics (story views, saves, click-throughs) before buying ads or sponsorships." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic emoji praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/encouragement and boost visible engagement; low informational value about intent or purchase interest." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"👏👏👏\". This is a low-information, high-frequency comment style that appears in both genuine follower interactions and low-effort/inorganic engagement (bots, click farms, or paid comment packs). On its own it does not indicate purchase intent, audience relevance, or authentic community engagement. Given the single, generic emoji comment, there is moderate suspicion of fakery (hence the fakeness score ~60) but confidence is low because one comment is insufficient evidence. For an advertising feasibility decision, this data point is weak — recommend collecting more signals (comment diversity and text, commenter profile checks, like-to-comment ratios, temporal patterns, follower authenticity metrics, and comment repetition across posts) before committing budget." }

Text: Girlboss 🔥🩷🌸

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short praise with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/support and generate quick engagement (likes/positive signal); short, generic encouragement rather than substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Girlboss 🔥🩷🌸'. This is a short, highly positive, emoji-rich remark that functions primarily as a quick show of support. Such comments are common from genuine fans but are also frequently used by bots, engagement pods, or low-effort accounts to inflate visible engagement. Given the brevity and generic nature, I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood (60) but with limited confidence (40) because a single data point is insufficient to conclude authenticity. For advertising feasibility this single comment provides almost no reliable signal about audience quality or conversion potential; score set at neutral (50) with low confidence (30). Recommended next steps before purchasing ads or partnerships: collect a larger sample of comments across multiple posts; analyze comment diversity (length, specificity, questions), commenter profiles (real-looking avatars, activity, follower counts), timing patterns, and engagement rates (likes per follower). Also check for suspicious patterns such as many one-word comments, repeated phrases, or a high proportion of accounts with few followers. Only after that deeper audit can you make a confident decision about ad spend." }

Text: Winner🙌❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short supportive praise with emojis", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/enthusiasm and provide social proof; lightweight engagement to boost visible activity" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Winner🙌❤️' is a brief, highly positive reaction that provides minimal substantive engagement. Such one-word/emoji comments commonly serve as social proof but are also frequent in bot activity, engagement pods, or from casual followers who do not meaningfully engage. With only this comment available, the likelihood of inauthenticity is moderate (fakeness_score 60) because the message is generic and non-specific; however, certainty is limited without more context (moderate confidence). For advertising feasibility this post's comments are weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience (overall_score 35). Recommendation: before purchasing ad space or partnerships, inspect commenter accounts (age, follower counts, posting history), comment diversity and timing across multiple posts, overall engagement rate, and look for patterns of repeated generic praise. If many comments are similarly short/generic, treat the audience as low trust for conversion-focused campaigns." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressing praise/approval/encouragement in a low-effort form; general positive engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The available comment is a single sequence of clapping-hands emojis. Emoji-only applause is a common, low-effort positive response that can be posted by genuine followers, casual viewers, engagement-pod participants, or automated/bot accounts. On its own it provides very little signal about audience quality or authenticity. The relatively low fakeness score reflects that a single applause emoji is not strong evidence of inauthenticity, while the modest confidence scores reflect the severe limitation of having only one comment to analyze. For advertising-purchase decisions this sample is insufficient: it neither demonstrates deep, meaningful engagement (no substantive text, questions, or product-focused feedback) nor clear signs of coordinated fake activity. Recommended next steps before buying ads: examine the commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity, bio), the full comments set (diversity, repetition, timing), like-to-comment ratios, follower growth patterns, and whether many comments are identical or emoji-only across posts. Those checks will materially improve confidence in whether the influencer’s engagement is genuine and whether the account is a good ad partner." }

Text: La meilleure toi 😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration and positive reinforcement; increase social proof and engagement; likely intended to support the creator rather than promote or solicit." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"La meilleure toi 😍\" is a short, positive, language-specific compliment (French) with an emoji. It reads as organic — uses a personal pronoun ('toi') rather than a generic template, contains no links or promotional language, and is typical of genuine follower interactions. However, with only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects the comment's personalized phrasing and lack of obvious bot signatures, but the confidence is moderate because bots and engagement farms sometimes post short compliments as well. For advertising purchase decisions, this single comment provides only weak evidence of engaged, real followers. I recommend: (1) reviewing a larger sample of recent comments for repetition, language patterns, and commenter account quality; (2) checking commenter profiles for real photos, post history, follower counts, and activity; (3) calculating engagement rate (likes + comments / followers) and comparing to benchmarks; and (4) looking for signals of paid or incentivized comments (repeated phrases, many one-word emoji replies, suspicious accounts). With present data, I would not rely solely on comments to approve ad spend." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic emoji praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick approval/encouragement. Low-effort engagement that signals positive reaction but provides no substantive feedback; common both from genuine casual followers and from inorganic engagement (bots/engagement pods)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided and it consists of two clapping-hand emojis (\"👏👏\"). Emoji-only responses are low-information signals: they show positive sentiment but do not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, product intent, or authentic conversation. Because generic emojis are frequently used by bots and engagement pods as well as real users, there is a moderate-to-high risk that such comments indicate low-quality or inorganic engagement rather than strong, monetizable audience response (fakeness score 70, moderate confidence 50). Given the extremely small sample size, this assessment has limited confidence. For advertising purchase decisions, this single emoji comment is a weak positive signal and should not be relied on. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of recent comments across multiple posts; inspect commenter profiles for follower counts, posting history, and language variety; check like-to-comment ratios, comment diversity (text length, questions, tagging), timing patterns (many comments posted in short bursts), and presence of repetitive/generic comments. If multiple posts show similar emoji-only and repetitive comments from low-profile accounts, downgrade campaign feasibility. With current data, overall suitability for advertising is low–moderate (overall score 40) but this should be re-evaluated after deeper comment and audience quality analysis." }