Job: @dimakreis

Text: 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 20, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive reaction (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/enthusiasm and provide engagement signal; low-information endorsement that increases visible engagement metrics but does not convey substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of the raising-hands emoji (🙌) is available. This is a low-effort, positive engagement that could be genuine follower praise, an engagement-pod response, or a bot-like low-value interaction — there is insufficient context to distinguish. As a result, the fakeness estimate is low-to-moderate (25) but with only moderate confidence because single-emoji comments are ambiguous. For advertising feasibility the evidence is weak: a single emoji comment provides almost no information about audience quality, purchase intent, or authentic engagement, so the overall suitability score is low (20) with low confidence. Recommended next steps before buying ads: collect more comments, examine comment diversity and timing, inspect commenter profiles (followers, activity, real photos), check likes/engagement rates relative to follower count, and look for repeated similar short comments across posts (pattern of inorganic engagement)." }

Text: @edilych

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging another account (draw attention/recommend to friend). Often low-effort engagement; can be genuine referral, engagement-bait, or automated/spam." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists solely of an @mention (@edilych). This is low-information, low-effort engagement: such comments frequently serve to pull other accounts into the thread or to inflate visible engagement without substantive interaction. Given one short mention, I assess a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 60) but with low confidence because a lone mention can also be a genuine friend-tag. For advertising feasibility this sample is insufficient and leans negative: the presence of only a tag suggests low-quality audience interaction on this post, so I give a low overall score (25). Recommended next steps: obtain the full comment set and timestamps, inspect the mentioning account's profile (followers, activity, language match), check for repeated identical mentions across posts, look at commenter diversity and comment-to-like ratios, and review recent engagement trends before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: Okay, ich brauche leider eine neue Wohnung

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/relatable reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expressing a personal need or reaction (could be genuine complaint, request for sympathy, or a humorous/exaggerated remark); intended to engage or elicit responses from the poster or other followers." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Okay, ich brauche leider eine neue Wohnung' ('Okay, I unfortunately need a new apartment'). This reads as a personal, context-dependent reaction rather than a generic marketing compliment or a short, templated praise typical of fake engagement. The phrasing suggests genuine emotional expression or hyperbole (e.g., reacting to content that highlights housing or lifestyle), so likelihood of being authentic is relatively high. However, a single comment is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the overall authenticity of the account's comments or the influencer's suitability for advertising. For ad-buy feasibility, more data is needed: volume and variety of comments, ratio of personal replies to one-word praises, repetition across commenters, follower-to-engagement ratio, timing patterns, and commenter account quality. Given the limited sample, I give a moderate overall suitability score but low confidence. Recommended next steps: sample 50–200 recent comments, check for repeated phrases/usernames, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, avatars), and compare engagement rate to benchmarks before making an advertising decision." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive reaction/affection; lightweight engagement that increases visible interaction but gives no substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided, consisting solely of repeated heart-eyes emojis. Emoji-only comments are low-information: they show positive sentiment but do not reveal user intent, product interest, or audience quality. Such comments can be genuine casual reactions from fans, or low-effort engagement from bots/engagement pods; with one example the likelihood of fakeness is highly uncertain. For advertising feasibility this single comment is insufficient evidence. Recommend gathering more data before making buying decisions: number of unique commenters, ratio of substantive to emoji/generic comments, comment timing patterns, commenter follower counts and profiles, engagement rate vs follower count, and any repeated identical comments across posts. Based on the very limited sample, score is low for confidently endorsing ad purchase on the basis of comment quality alone." }

Text: 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "express praise/approval and quick engagement; signals positive reaction but provides no substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is a row of clapping-hand emojis. Emoji-only applause is common among genuine followers but is also frequently produced by low-effort bots or engagement pods. With a single instance it is impossible to reliably classify as real or fake; therefore I assign a moderate fakeness risk (60/100) with low-to-moderate confidence (40/100). For advertising feasibility this comment signals positive sentiment but no meaningful audience insight — I give a neutral overall suitability score (50/100) with low confidence (35/100). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check commenter profile(s) for authenticity (followers, posting history, avatar, username patterns), look for repetition of the same emoji-only comments across posts, evaluate overall engagement rate and comment diversity, and compare likes vs comments to detect inorganic activity." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive reaction (emoji applause)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show approval/celebration; quick engagement to signal support or excitement" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a string of three clapping-hand emojis (\"👏👏👏\"). This is a generic positive reaction that indicates engagement but conveys no substantive sentiment, intent to buy, or meaningful conversation. Such emoji-only comments can be genuine (followers quickly applauding content) or low-effort/automated engagement (bots or engagement pods). Given a single, context-free comment, there is insufficient evidence to strongly assess authenticity or audience quality. The moderate fakeness score (60) reflects the reasonable likelihood that emoji-only comments are used by automated/low-quality accounts, while the low confidence (35) reflects the very small sample size and lack of account metadata (commenter profile, follower counts, timing, language patterns, comment diversity, or volume). For advertising feasibility I rated the overall suitability low (30) with low confidence (25) because one generic comment does not demonstrate an engaged, relevant, or responsive audience. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for variety (text vs. emoji), inspect commenter profiles for real account signals (profile photos, follower/following ratios, posting history), check comment timing patterns, measure post-level engagement rate versus follower count, and look for conversational comments, questions, or repeat commenters — these are stronger indicators of a real, valuable audience for ads." }

Text: Agradecida por tus recomendaciones 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Appreciation / Positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses gratitude for recommendations; signals positive reception of the content and likely genuine follower engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Agradecida por tus recomendaciones 👏👏👏' is specific, uses natural language and emojis, and directly references the creator's recommendations — characteristics that favor authenticity. Fakeness risk is low but not zero (short comments can sometimes be automated). However, one positive comment alone is insufficient to assess overall audience quality or advertising suitability. For a reliable decision on purchasing advertising, analyze a larger sample of comments and metrics: comment volume and diversity, timing patterns, repetition of phrases, commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts), like-to-comment ratio, and historical engagement consistency. Based on this single comment, there is a modest positive signal (overall score 60), but confidence in that overall assessment is limited." }

Text: 👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single emoji (thumbs-up)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort positive engagement — expresses approval/acknowledgement. Could be a genuine quick reaction from a follower or a generic/bot-like engagement; provides very little audience insight." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is present and it is a single thumbs-up emoji. This is low-information: it signals positive reaction but no substantive engagement (no question, no endorsement, no conversation). Such comments are common from both real users who react quickly and from automated or low-effort accounts, so the probability of being fake is moderate (estimated ~45) with limited confidence (~40) due to the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility this is weak evidence of an engaged, responsive audience — overall suitability score is low (25) with modest confidence (35). Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze overall engagement metrics (likes, total comments, comment diversity), inspect commenters' profiles for authenticity (account age, follower counts, posting history), check timing/patterns of comments and likes, and review other posts for consistent engagement quality." }

Text: @artezzabiscuit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "username mention / tagged account", "count": 1, "purpose": "Likely either (a) tagging another account to draw attention or share the post, (b) self-promotion (poster advertising their own/partner account), or (c) low-effort spam/bot behavior. No additional text or engagement indicators to clarify intent." } ], "interpretation": "The only comment provided is a single bare username (@artezzabiscuit). Comments consisting solely of a handle are commonly either simple tags (a real user tagging a friend or collaborator) or low-effort spam/self-promotion often generated by bots. Because there is no accompanying text, emoji, question, or conversational content, the comment's authenticity is ambiguous and leans toward suspicious. With a single short mention it's impossible to conclude organic community interest or meaningful engagement. For influencer-ad buying decisions this signal is weak: it neither demonstrates genuine audience interaction nor provides evidence of targeted, engaged followers. Recommended next steps: inspect the tagged account (@artezzabiscuit) for authenticity (age, posts, followers), check whether the same handle appears repeatedly across multiple posts (pattern of spam), review a larger sample of comments on this and other posts for diversity and conversational content, and request the influencer's engagement breakdown (real commenters, top commenters, timing). Based on current data, treat comment quality as low-to-moderate risk for artificial engagement; do not rely on it alone when evaluating the influencer for advertising." }

Text: واوووو اول مره تضبط معي

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive testimonial / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses that the product/method worked for the commenter — provides social proof and positive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (Arabic/Persian: \"واوووو اول مره تضبط معي\" — \"Wow, this worked for me for the first time\") is a short, positive, experience-based remark that reads like a genuine user reaction indicating the product or advice worked. That specificity reduces the likelihood of it being a generic spam template, but with only one comment there is very limited evidence to judge authenticity. Risk factors for potential inauthenticity include: brief phrasing (common in automated replies), lack of account context (unknown whether commenter is a real engaged follower), and absence of corroborating comments or reactions. Given the minimal sample, I rate comment fakeness as low-to-moderate (20/100) but with modest confidence (40/100). For advertising feasibility, this single positive comment is weak evidence of meaningful, authentic engagement — overall assessment 40/100 with low confidence (30/100). Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: collect larger sample of recent comments, check commenter account(s) for real activity and follower patterns, inspect timing and repetition of similar comments, measure like/reply rates, and run bot-detection/engagement-quality tools to confirm audience authenticity." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "generic positive engagement / applause — shows approval or support, likely intended to boost visible engagement without substantive content" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment consisting of clapping emojis was provided. This is a low-information, low-effort engagement that can be genuine (a real follower applauding) or bot-like/engagement-farm behavior (generic reaction used to inflate metrics). With only this comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge audience authenticity or to confidently approve advertising spend. The moderate fakeness score reflects the higher ambiguity of emoji-only comments; confidence is low because more context is needed (other comments, commenter profiles, timing, repetition of identical comments, overall engagement rate, follower quality). Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments and inspect commenter accounts for realistic profiles, diversity of comment types (questions, product mentions, long-form praise), and suspicious patterns (many identical short comments, newly created accounts, no profile pictures) before making an advertising decision." }

Text: Dopamine released successfully

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / Emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses pleasure/approval of the content (praise/endorsement) and signals engagement; short, casual, somewhat humorous reaction." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Dopamine released successfully' reads as a concise, positive emotional reaction — a casual endorsement that the post produced pleasure or excitement. It appears organic in tone (not a salesy or templated phrase often used by bot farms), so fakeness risk is relatively low but not negligible given only one data point. With only one comment available, you cannot infer broader engagement quality or audience authenticity. For an advertising feasibility decision, this single comment is weak evidence: it suggests the content can elicit a positive emotional response, but you should verify overall engagement metrics (likes-to-followers ratio, comment volume and diversity, timing patterns), inspect multiple recent posts for repetitive phrasing or identical commenters, and review commenter account quality (real profiles vs. newly created or spammy accounts) before trusting the influencer's audience for ad spend." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses simple positive sentiment/affection; increases visible engagement but provides no topical or purchase-intent information." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of a heart emoji is available. Such one-token emoji comments are common, low-information signals: they can be genuine (a real follower quickly showing support) or generic/automated (bots, engagement pods, or purchased comments). The neutrality of the emoji and lack of contextual content make it a weak signal for audience quality. Because there is only one comment and no metadata (commenter profile, timing, comment patterns, number of similar comments, likes on the comment, replies), confidence in any judgment is low. For advertising feasibility: this single heart neither supports nor strongly undermines the influencer’s value. Recommend a fuller audit before purchase decisions — analyze the commenters (profiles, follower counts, comment diversity and repetition), overall engagement rate vs follower count, distribution of comment types, timestamps, and historical post performance. With current data, treat this post's comments as inconclusive and proceed only after deeper verification." }

Text: 101 ways to destroy ur door 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humorous/engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and engagement with the post (playful sarcasm); no clear purchasing intent or brand endorsement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: '101 ways to destroy ur door 😂'. This reads as a genuine, humorous reaction rather than promotional or automated. It indicates audience amusement and light engagement, but does not convey product interest, influencer credibility, or purchase intent. Given the extremely small sample size, this is insufficient evidence to judge the overall quality of the influencer's audience for advertising. For ad-feasibility assessment, you need more data: total comment volume, ratio of substantive comments to short/emote comments, repeat commenter patterns, like/comment ratios, follower authenticity and demographics, and comment timing. Based on this single comment alone: low likelihood of being fake, positive for entertainment engagement, low signal for conversion—recommend collecting a larger, representative comment sample before making an advertising decision." }

Text: Like here plsss

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "engagement request / engagement bait", "count": 1, "purpose": "Solicit likes or attention (short request to 'Like here'), likely to boost visibility of the commenter or the comment rather than to contribute meaningful feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Like here plsss' is a low-effort engagement request. This type of comment is common on influencer posts and usually aims to drive quick visible metrics (likes) rather than provide genuine audience sentiment about the content. With only this comment to analyze, there is limited signal: the comment appears authentic in wording but is content-free and likely not indicative of an engaged, motivated audience. Because engagement-bait comments can be posted by real users, bots, or paid accounts used to inflate metrics, I assess a moderate-low likelihood of being fake (fakeness score 35/100) with limited confidence. For advertising decisions, this single comment suggests weak qualitative engagement; if most comments on the post are similar, I would rate the post's comment-quality and audience value as low (overall score 30/100). Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments, engagement patterns (likes, saves), follower quality, and recent post comments before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: Die Übungen kann man gut in den Alltag integrieren 👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/useful-feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "endorsement/social proof — user states the content is practical and can be integrated into daily life, signaling genuine appreciation and potential intent to apply advice" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short, specific positive remark in German ('Die Übungen kann man gut in den Alltag integrieren 👍'), which reads like genuine user feedback rather than a generic promotional phrase. The specificity (mentions exercises and everyday integration) and the casual emoji reduce the likelihood of automation or templated spam. However, this is only one data point: assessment confidence is limited. To increase reliability, review more comments across multiple posts, check commenter profile(s) for authenticity (history, follower count, activity), examine like:comment ratios, timing patterns, and look for repeated phrasing across posts which would indicate inauthentic comments. Given current information, the comments look mostly real (low fakeness), and the post provides modest positive social proof for advertising considerations, but a larger sample is needed before making a firm purchase decision." }

Text: 👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (👏)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive reaction / approval; low-effort engagement intended to show support or appreciation and to register an interaction (helps reach/algorithm). Could be from a genuine follower, a casual viewer, or an automated/low-effort account." } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single emoji-only comment (a clap). Emoji reactions are a common, low-effort form of engagement that signal approval but contain no substantive content to evaluate authenticity or audience alignment. Such comments boost interaction counts but are neutral evidence for real, interested followers: they can be genuine (fans, casual viewers) or produced en masse by low-quality/bot accounts or engagement pods. Given the minimal data (one comment, no commenter profile, timestamps, or broader comment patterns), the fakeness assessment is necessarily uncertain. For advertising-purchase feasibility, this single comment is weak evidence. It does not demonstrate deep audience interest, message resonance, or persuasive influence. I recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, follower demographics, comment diversity and timing, and consistency across posts before making a buy decision. With only this data point, proceed cautiously and treat the influencer as high risk for weak authentic engagement." }

Text: 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive engagement / praise. Signals approval or support but provides no substantive feedback; often used to boost visible engagement. Can be posted by genuine followers (low-effort) or by automated/generic accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a string of clapping-hand emojis (👏🏼 x5). This is a low-information, positive engagement signal: it increases visible comment count and sentiment but does not indicate purchase intent, product interest, or audience quality. Emoji-only responses are common from real followers as quick praise, but they are also frequently produced by bots or engagement-for-reciprocity accounts. Given only one comment to analyze, the assessment is highly uncertain. I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood because emoji-only comments are a common pattern for low-effort or automated engagement. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, targetable audience. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments (content variety, specificity, questions, time distribution), examine likes-to-followers ratio, follower authenticity signals (profile completeness, posting patterns), and audience demographics before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses appreciation/positive reaction; low informational value. Often used to signal engagement (likes) rather than substantive feedback — can be genuine micro-engagement from followers or simple/bot-produced padding." } ], "interpretation": "Dataset is extremely small (one comment: two heart emojis). Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they do indicate positive sentiment but provide no detail about audience relevance or purchase intent. Such comments commonly appear both from real followers doing quick reactions and from low-effort/bot accounts or engagement pods. Given a single short emoji, I assess a moderate probability of being non-organic (fakeness_score 45) but with only medium confidence because the sample is tiny. For ad-buy decisions this comment is weak evidence of a responsive, valuable audience — it raises neither clear interest in products nor trust signals. Overall comment-based suitability for advertising is low (overall_score 25). Recommended next steps: analyze more comments across multiple posts, check commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting activity), measure like-to-comment ratios, engagement rate vs follower count, and look for repeated or identical comments across posts to detect bots or engagement pods. Use those broader signals before making a purchase decision." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short emoji praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval/encouragement; serves as low-effort engagement with little informational value (could be genuine fan support or automated/low-quality engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three clapping-hand emojis. This is low-information, low-effort engagement that signals positive reaction but does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, intent to purchase, or authentic conversation. Emoji-only comments are common from both real followers and bot/engagement-service accounts, so fakeness is plausible but not provable from this single example. Conclusion: current comment sample is insufficient to judge influencer suitability for advertising. Recommend collecting a larger comment sample, examining commenter accounts (follower counts, activity, profile completeness), comment diversity, timing patterns, reply behavior, and overall engagement rate before making an advertising decision." }

Text: @jenselluchti

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user_mention / tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "To notify or draw a specific person's attention (\"tag a friend\"), to increase visibility/engagement by prompting others to visit the post, or simple spam (low-effort bot comment)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided and it is a bare user-mention (@jenselluchti) with no additional text, emoji, or context. That pattern is ambiguous: it can be a genuine follower tagging a friend to show the post, but it is also a common form of low-effort engagement or bot/spam comment used to inflate apparent activity. With a single example there is insufficient evidence to classify comments as clearly organic or fake. I scored overall fakeness as moderately low-to-medium (40) because a single mention alone is not strong proof of inorganic behavior, but the absence of conversational content raises suspicion. The overall suitability for advertising is neutral (50) with low confidence because meaningful ad-feasibility judgments require more data: the full comment set, frequency of tags vs substantive comments, commenter account quality (age, follower counts, activity), repetition of the same handles, timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments (at least several posts), check for repeated mentions or identical phrasing, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts, and compute genuine engagement metrics before making a buying decision." }

Text: Hilft das auch mit so nem Massageball?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user question / genuine engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "information-seeking: asks whether the demonstrated method/product also works with a massage ball; indicates practical interest and intent to learn or try" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: 'Hilft das auch mit so nem Massageball?' This is a colloquial, specific question in German that reads as a genuine user inquiry rather than a generic promotional or bot comment. The phrasing and content suggest a real person wanting practical clarification, so fakeness is assessed very low (5/100) with moderate confidence. However, a single comment is an extremely small sample for influencer assessment. There is insufficient data on volume, diversity, timing, commenter profiles, likes, and overall engagement rate to judge audience authenticity or promotional value reliably. For advertising-feasibility decisions, request a larger sample (full comment set, timestamps, commenter account details, follower count and engagement metrics). Based on this single comment alone, the post shows at least one real interaction but lacks evidence of sustained, authentic engagement, so the overall suitability score is conservative (40/100) with low confidence." }

Text: 😻

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive affect/approval; lightweight engagement to signal liking or affection for the post" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: an emoji (😻). This is a minimal, positive reaction that shows audience approval but carries almost no substantive information about intent, purchase interest, or real follower engagement. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine users but are also easy to generate by bots or engagement farms, so authenticity is ambiguous. Given the tiny sample size, the assessed fakeness of 20 reflects that an isolated heart-eyes-cat emoji is more likely organic than clearly fraudulent, but confidence is low (40) because one comment is insufficient to judge patterns. For advertising-feasibility decisions the comment evidence is weak (overall score 30, confidence 50). Recommendation: obtain more data before buying ads — collect a larger set of comments across multiple posts, measure comment diversity and depth, check likes-to-followers ratio, look for repeated generic comments, review commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts), and examine temporal patterns (sudden spikes). These additional checks will substantially increase confidence in authenticity and campaign suitability." }

Text: lol

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 20, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "low-effort reaction (single-word)", "count": 1, "purpose": "express amusement/acknowledgement; superficial engagement to signal attention rather than provide meaningful feedback" } ], "interpretation": "There is only one comment: 'lol'. This is a low-effort, single-word reaction that indicates superficial engagement but provides no substantive information about audience interest, sentiment depth, or product relevance. Single-word comments like this are common from genuine followers casually reacting but are also commonly produced by bots or engagement farms to inflate apparent interaction. Given the minimal dataset, the fakeness assessment is uncertain (moderate leaning toward inauthentic due to the generic nature). For advertising decisions, these comments are low-quality signals — they do not demonstrate purchase intent, product feedback, or an engaged community. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments, likes-to-followers ratio, follower growth patterns, and audience demographics before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: Aquí los d las piernas curvas ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Compliment / Admiration", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses positive reaction to the influencer's appearance (legs). Signals support/affection and increases visible engagement; likely intended to praise rather than to promote or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The comment \"Aquí los d las piernas curvas ❤️\" is an informal, positive remark in Spanish referencing the influencer's legs and includes a heart emoji. Its content is specific (body feature) and not generic promotional language, which lowers the probability of it being bot-generated or paid engagement. That said, this is a single short comment and alone provides limited evidence about the overall authenticity of the account's audience. For advertising feasibility: this comment is a small positive signal that followers are engaged and appreciative, but more data is needed (volume of comments, repetition of similar messages, commenter account audits, like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns) to confidently judge audience genuineness and ad value. Recommendation: perform a larger-sample comment analysis and audit commenter profiles before purchase." }

Text: 😮

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "выражение удивления/реакция; низкоинтенсивное вовлечение, служит для отметки присутствия или поднятия метрик; может быть как от реального подписчика, так и от бота/engagement-pod" } ], "interpretation": "Набор данных очень скудный — единственный комментарий «😮» даёт мало информации. Emoji‑комментарии часто встречаются у реальных подписчиков, но также широко используются ботами и организациями взаимного лайка/комментирования. Из-за отсутствия контекста (количество лайков, список комментаторов, разнообразие комментариев, временные шаблоны) я оцениваю вероятность фейковости как выше среднего (60/100) с невысокой уверенностью (40/100). В целом текущие комментарии дают слабую поддержку для принятия решения о покупке рекламы — общий рейтинг 25/100 (уверенность 45/100). Рекомендации: собрать полный срез комментариев и профилей комментаторов, проверить соотношение комментариев/лайков/подписчиков, повторяющиеся короткие комментарии и временные всплески; провести аудит активных фолловеров и взаимодействий перед инвестицией в рекламу." }

Text: Geñio

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short praise / generic compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show positive reaction to the post and boost visible engagement; offers little substantive feedback or signal about genuine audience interest" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment, 'Geñio' (likely intended as 'Genio' — 'genius' in Spanish/Portuguese), is a brief positive remark. It functions primarily as a low-effort engagement signal rather than meaningful feedback. Such comments are common from genuine followers but are also easy to fabricate by bots or engagement farms, so they provide limited confidence about the authenticity of the audience. Given only one very short comment, the sample is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about audience quality for advertising. Recommendation: evaluate a larger set of comments (diversity, conversational replies), unique commenter count, comment timing, comment-to-follower ratio, and comment likes to better assess authenticity and ad suitability." }

Text: Gracias

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Appreciation / Thank you", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express gratitude or acknowledgement of the post (positive engagement). Could indicate a satisfied follower or a polite reply." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: a single-word Spanish \"Gracias\" (\"Thanks\"). Single-word gratitude comments are common and can be genuine reactions from followers, but they are also frequently produced by low-effort bots or mass-engagement activity. Given the extremely small sample size, the fakeness assessment is uncertain (fakeness_score 35 / confidence 40) — I slightly lean toward genuine but cannot rule out automated or low-value engagement. For advertising feasibility, this single generic comment is a weak signal; it shows minimal qualitative engagement but tells nothing about audience size, relevance, purchasing intent, or comment diversity. Overall suitability for ad purchase is therefore limited to moderate/low (overall_score 45 / confidence 30). Recommendation: collect more data — total comments, likes, comment diversity, timestamp patterns, follower-to-engagement ratios, and sample of multiple posts — before making a buying decision." }

Text: Birdagi kop futbol oynagan shuning uchun chunki meniki ham shunde

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal anecdote / relatable", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal similarity to the post (relatability/engagement), not promotional or clearly spam/bot." } ], "interpretation": "Translation of comment (approx.): \"Because he/she played a lot of football there — mine is the same.\" The single comment appears to be a genuine personal reaction or anecdote connecting the commenter’s experience to the post. It does not contain generic praise, emojis, links, calls-to-action, or typical bot patterns. However, the sample size is extremely small (only one comment), so conclusions about the overall comment quality or audience authenticity are limited. For advertising feasibility: low comment volume suggests weak visible engagement; the lone comment is organic in tone but insufficient to indicate strong active community or reliable reach. Recommend obtaining more data — total comments, likes, follower quality, comment timestamps and diversity — before making an ad purchase decision. Based on available data, treatment: caution (score 35/100)." }

Text: But bro I'm football player 😢

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal/emotional identity comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses personal identity and emotion (disappointment/sadness) to relate to the post and elicit a response or reaction from the poster or community. Could also be playful or sarcastic depending on context." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"But bro I'm football player 😢\" appears to be a genuine, personal/emotional response rather than generic promotional copy. It likely aims to relate to the post content, signal identity, and provoke a reply (engagement). Fakeness likelihood is low, but confidence is limited because this is only one comment and lacks surrounding context (other comments, likes, replies, commenter profile). For advertising-feasibility: this isolated comment shows some real human interaction, but the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about audience quality or overall engagement. Recommend reviewing a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, comment timing patterns, and presence of repetitive/comment templates to better assess authenticity and ad suitability." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short one-word comment / keyword", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort engagement: could be a topical keyword (e.g., 'Rückenfit' = 'back-fit') indicating interest in back/fitness content, or generic spam/algorithmic keyword posting. Functions as minimal endorsement or tagging rather than meaningful engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single, one-word comment ('Rückenfit') is available, which makes reliable judgment difficult. Characteristics: very short, no personalizing language, no emojis, no questions, no user-specific detail. Possible explanations: 1) genuine quick reaction by a follower noting the post is about back fitness or a back-focused program; 2) low-effort promotional/comment-bot posting a keyword to trigger visibility; 3) a user leaving a reminder/note (e.g., to self). Given these possibilities and the absence of supporting context (other comments, commenter profile, timing, likes), the comment leans toward low-effort or automated engagement rather than a high-value, authentic endorsement. For advertising-feasibility assessment this single comment is insufficient evidence of strong, authentic community engagement; treat as weak signal and request more comment samples, commenter metadata, and engagement metrics (likes, replies, follower overlap) before making a buy decision." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "one-word topical/keyword comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "express topical interest or shorthand endorsement (low-effort engagement). Could also be a short tag/spam from a bot or low-effort follower." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment — the German word 'Rückenfit' (meaning 'back fit' / 'back fitness') — is available. This is a very low-information sample: it is a short, one-word topical remark that could be a genuine quick expression of interest in back-related fitness content, or a generic, low-effort comment (including automated or engagement-bait behaviour). With only this data point it is not possible to reliably distinguish authentic engagement from fake or low-quality engagement. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment provides weak positive topical relevance but low signal about audience quality, intent, or conversion potential. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments, examine commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), comment timestamps, and engagement rates before making purchasing decisions." }

Text: @mike0._.0

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Directly tags another account — likely cross-promotion, notification-seeking, or spam/bot activity. Could also be a genuine friend pointing someone to the post." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided and it consists solely of an @-mention (@mike0._.0). This is low-information and low-quality engagement: mention-only comments are commonly used by bots, engagement farms, or spam accounts to create notifications or drive traffic, though they can also be genuine friend tags. Given the lone sample, I assess a relatively high likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness score 70) but with low-to-moderate confidence because context is missing.\n\nFor influencer-advertising feasibility this single comment is a weak signal. Substantive indicators that would increase confidence (and could change the assessment) are: number and variety of comments, comment-to-like ratio, timestamps (bursty activity), repeat commenters, commenter profile audits (follower counts, post history), language/emoji patterns, and presence of meaningful conversation. Absent that, the overall suitability score is low (30) and should be treated cautiously.\n\nRecommendations: obtain the full set of recent comments, a list of top commenters, likes and follower counts, and sample commenter profiles. Run simple authenticity checks (duplicate comments, usernames that follow similar patterns, extreme follower-to-following ratios) before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: Rückenwirbel

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word / ambiguous", "count": 1, "purpose": "Unclear — could be a genuine short reaction (e.g., naming a body part if post is medical/fitness), or a low-effort engagement/spam/bot keyword. Lacks conversational context or intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment ('Rückenwirbel') is available. It is a single-word, German term meaning 'vertebra' and is ambiguous without the post context. Such comments are commonly seen as low-effort engagement and can be either a genuine short remark (if the post relates to anatomy, back pain, chiropractic content) or inorganic (bot/spam/keyword-stuffing). Given the lack of additional comments, replies, or user context, the sample is insufficient to confidently assess audience authenticity. For advertising feasibility this signals low evidence of meaningful, engaged community interaction; before purchasing ads or partnerships, inspect commenter profiles (age, activity, followers), timing and volume of similar comments, like counts, and broader comment patterns across the influencer's recent posts. If many comments are similar one-word or irrelevant remarks, treat engagement as likely low-quality and reduce trust in reach/ROI." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "brief topical engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "single-word response indicating relevance to post topic (mentions 'Rückenfit' — back fitness), likely expressing approval or alignment with content" } ], "interpretation": "Only one short German comment ('Rückenfit') is available. This is a low-information, topical engagement that likely signals a genuine, context-specific reaction (user referencing back fitness or endorsing the theme). It is ambiguous — could be a real user, a shorthand endorsement, or a minimal bot/spam comment, but it lacks patterns typical of fake comments (generic praise, repeated emojis, unrelated links). Given the single data point, the confidence in determining fakeness and overall influencer suitability is limited. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single comment provides weak positive signal for niche relevance but is insufficient evidence of authentic, engaged audience. Recommend expanding the analysis to more comments and to commenter profiles, timestamps, repetition patterns, likes-to-comments ratio, and diversity of responses before making a buy decision." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word/short engagement (ambiguous)", "count": 1, "purpose": "One-word expression likely indicating topic interest or a brief endorsement ('Rückenfit' = 'back-fit' / 'back fitness'). Could be a genuine shorthand reaction, a topical tag, or low-effort/bot comment; intent is ambiguous." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: a single German word 'Rückenfit'. This is ambiguous — it may be a genuine quick endorsement or topical reaction, or it may be low-effort/bot/spam. With such a small sample you cannot reliably judge overall comment authenticity or community quality. Recommendations before buying ads: inspect the commenter's profile(s) for real-user signals (profile photo, bio, posting history, followers), check whether identical short comments appear repeatedly across posts (bot signature), compare comment volume to likes (low comments/high likes can indicate purchased engagement), examine language consistency among commenters and timing patterns (many similar comments posted in short bursts), and sample multiple recent posts to assess comment diversity and meaningful interaction. Given the single ambiguous comment, treat this post as inconclusive and seek more data for a confident advertising decision." }

Text: Quero

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short expression of desire / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Signals interest or desire (e.g., wanting the product/offer) or is used as engagement bait; may be genuine follower interest or a generic spam/bot comment intended to trigger creator response or visibility." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single, one-word comment ('Quero' — Portuguese for 'I want') was provided. That makes robust analysis impossible. One-word comments are ambiguous: they can be genuine quick responses from interested followers, or they can be low-effort bot/spam comments repeated across posts to inflate visible engagement. Given the lack of context (no commenter profile, no other comments, no timestamps, no like counts), I assess moderate likelihood of being non-genuine (fakeness score 55) but with low confidence (30) because there is insufficient data. For advertising purchase feasibility, the comment sample is too small and low-quality to support a positive decision (overall score 30, confidence 25). Recommended next steps before buying ads: obtain a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts; analyze commenter profiles for real followers (profile completeness, post history, follower/following ratios); measure comment-to-like ratio and repetition of identical short comments; check for bot indicators (many new accounts, usernames with random characters, repeated phrases). Only with that additional data can a reliable recommendation be made." }

Text: Rückenfit🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / short reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Praise/encouragement (simple approval of content; expresses that the content is good for the back). Low informational value for engagement quality." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Rückenfit🙌\" (German, roughly 'back-fit' with an applause emoji). This is a short, positive reaction typical of genuine follower feedback on fitness or posture-related content. The comment is not overtly promotional, repetitive, or clearly bot-like, so assessed fakeness is low (10/100) but with only moderate confidence because short generic comments can sometimes be automated or copy-pasted across posts. Overall assessment for advertising purchase based on these comments is limited: single positive comment indicates some favorable audience response but provides very weak evidence of authentic, engaged community or broad reach. Recommend evaluating a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, followers, posting history), comment timing patterns, likes on comments, and overall engagement metrics (likes, saves, reach) before making a buying decision." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "One-word keyword / short tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief topical tag or short endorsement — could be genuine (user praising/labeling the post's subject) or a promotional/spam keyword; ambiguous without context." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment available: the single-word term \"Rückenfit\" (German: 'back fit'). This is an extremely small and ambiguous sample. Characteristics that raise suspicion of inauthenticity: single-word comment, no personalization, no emojis or interaction cues, and no conversational context. Characteristics consistent with authenticity: the word is topical and could naturally relate to content about back health/fitness. Given the lack of additional comments, commenter metadata, timestamps, like counts, or language/context of the post, confidence in any judgment is low. Practical recommendation: collect more comments and engagement metrics (likes, commenter profiles, diversity of commenters, timing patterns) before using this influencer for purchase decisions. Current assessment: comment quality is low/ambiguous, leaning toward potentially low-value (possible spam or non-engaged audience), so proceed with caution and request more data for a reliable advertiser-fit decision." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word positive/topic-reference", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief endorsement or topical tag — indicates the commenter associates the post with 'back fitness' (likely a quick positive reaction or shorthand praise)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Rückenfit' (German for 'back fit'). This is a short, single-word reaction that likely signals topical relevance or quick positive feedback about back/fitness content. With such minimal data it is not possible to robustly judge authenticity or audience quality. The comment could be genuine (a real follower responding concisely) or low-effort/bot-like (single-word comments are common from automated accounts or engagement pods). Given the lack of additional comments, commenter profile data, timestamps, repetition patterns, and overall engagement context, confidence in any assessment is low. For advertiser decisions, this single comment provides little evidence of an engaged, authentic audience; I recommend analyzing a larger sample of recent comments, commenter account quality (followers, posting history), like/comment ratios, language distribution, and timing patterns before purchasing advertising or partnerships." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short topical keyword / single-word reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief topical reaction or tag-like mention (expresses interest or labels the post's subject, possibly to show relevance or as low-effort engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single one-word comment — \"Rückenfit\" (German for \"back fit\" / \"fit back\") — is available. This looks like a topical, low-effort reaction: either a genuine quick acknowledgement from a follower interested in back fitness or a minimal engagement (keyword-style) that could be used by bots or users to appear relevant. With only one short comment there is very limited signal: cannot assess diversity, conversation, sentiment depth, commenter authenticity, or engagement quality. The fakeness score is modest because single-word comments are common both for genuine quick reactions and for low-effort/bot comments; confidence is low given the tiny sample. For advertising-feasibility purposes this single datapoint is insufficient; the low overall score reflects lack of evidence for meaningful, authentic audience interaction. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (accounts, follower counts, posting histories), overall engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), comment timestamps, and whether comments are repetitive or templated. Also check follower quality and previous campaign performance to make a reliable decision." }

Text: Rückenwirbel

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word / ambiguous", "count": 1, "purpose": "Likely spam/bot or irrelevant; could alternatively be a concise topical remark if the post relates to medicine, anatomy, back pain or chiropractic content. Possible purposes: keyword stuffing, attention-seeking, test comment, or a genuine short reaction naming a topic ('vertebra')." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: the single German word 'Rückenwirbel' ('vertebra'). This is ambiguous: single-word comments are commonly produced by bots or low-effort accounts and can indicate inorganic engagement (hence a moderate fakeness score). However, if the post itself is about spines, back pain or anatomy, the comment could be a genuine topical shorthand. Confidence is limited because there is no commenter metadata, no context from the post, no pattern of repeated comments, and no engagement signals (likes/replies). For advertising decisions this single comment is weak evidence of authentic audience interest or quality engagement. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, language/audience match, overall engagement rate, timing patterns and repetition checks before relying on this influencer for ad spend." }

Text: 👍👍👍👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses simple approval/encouragement and contributes to visible engagement/social proof; provides no substantive feedback or intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "Dataset contains a single comment consisting of four thumbs-up emojis. Emoji-only comments signal positive sentiment but carry little information about commenter intent, audience relevance, or purchase likelihood. They are common among genuine followers as quick reactions, but also frequently appear in low-effort bot or engagement-farm activity. With only this one generic comment, there is insufficient evidence to judge the authenticity of the audience or the quality of engagement: the comment mildly increases visible engagement but does not demonstrate meaningful interest (no questions, product references, saves, or detailed praise). For advertising decisions, request broader metrics (total comments distribution, unique commenters, comment diversity, likes-to-comments ratio, follower audit, story and reach metrics, timestamps and repeating commenter patterns). Based on the single emoji comment, I rate the fakeness risk as moderate (40/100) and the overall suitability for ad spend as low (30/100), but confidence in these assessments is limited due to the extremely small sample size." }

Text: Rücken fit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short supportive/endorsement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a brief positive reaction (likely praising back health/fitness); functions as an endorsement or quick testimonial." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: 'Rücken fit' (German: 'back fit'). This is a very short, positive, context-dependent remark that reads like a genuine, spontaneous reaction or a succinct testimonial rather than a clearly manufactured message. However, the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions. Reasons for low fakeness score: no generic marketing phrases, no emoji-stuffed template structure, and content is specific. Reasons for remaining uncertainty: only one comment available, no commenter metadata (account age, follower count, posting pattern), no timestamp or like counts, and the platform label in Russian but comment in German suggests multilingual audience but could also indicate copied/pooled comments. Overall advertising-feasibility score is low–moderate (30) because engagement evidence is minimal; an advertiser would need a larger sample of real comments, engagement metrics (likes per post, story interactions), audience demographics, and authenticity checks (profile audits, comment repetition patterns) before purchasing. Recommended next steps: collect a larger comment set, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity, analyze comment timing and repetition, and check overall engagement rate on the influencer's posts." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short single-word positive / topical", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief affirmation or topical tag (praise or description of post content: 'Rückenfit' = 'back-fit'). Signals positive reaction but is ambiguous — could be genuine encouragement or a generic bot-like one-word reply." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: the German single-word 'Rückenfit'. With a single short, topical comment we have very limited signal. Single-word comments are common among real followers reacting quickly, especially on fitness/health content, but they are also easy for low-effort bots or engagement farms to generate. Given the scarcity of data, I rate the fakeness as low-to-moderate (25) but with low confidence (30) because a reliable judgement requires more comments, commenter profiles, timestamps and repetition patterns. For advertising feasibility the current evidence is weak — the comment is positive but not engaging (no question, no personal detail), so it provides little proof of an active, responsive audience. Overall suitability for purchase is therefore low-to-moderate (35) with low confidence (30). Recommended next steps before deciding: collect a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles for follower counts/ratios and posting history, check comment timestamps for bursts/duplicates, compare likes-to-comments engagement rate, and review whether comments are conversational or repetitively generic." }

Text: 👌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort approval or acknowledgement; raises visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback. Commonly used by both genuine followers and automated/low-quality accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment — a lone '👌' emoji — is available. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can come from real followers as a quick positive reaction or from bot/engagement-for-hire accounts that leave short generic comments to boost metrics. Given this single data point, there is weak evidence of authentic, meaningful audience interaction; the comment indicates minimal engagement value. For an advertising purchase decision, this should not be taken as a sign of strong, genuine community interest. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter account quality (profiles, activity, follower counts), compare like-to-comment ratios, and look for conversational replies or diverse, specific comments before deciding. Confidence in these judgments is low because the dataset is extremely limited." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥👏😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/enthusiasm; increase visible engagement. Low informational value — often used by genuine fans but also common from bots or engagement pods." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment (🔥🔥🔥🔥👏😍) is an emoji-only, high-positivity reaction. It signals engagement but provides no purchase intent, feedback, or specific endorsement. Emoji-only comments are common among real followers but are also frequently produced by automated accounts or engagement pods because they are easy and safe to post; with only one sample the assessment is uncertain. The moderate fakeness score reflects that ambiguity. For advertising decisions, this kind of comment is low signal for conversion potential; rely on broader metrics (volume and diversity of comments, timing patterns, commenter account quality, likes-to-comments ratio, follower authenticity) before committing. Recommendation: collect a larger comment sample and run profile checks (recent activity, follower counts, comment timestamps, language variety) to raise confidence." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/enthusiasm and boost engagement/visibility; low informational value (could be genuine fan reaction or generic engagement from pods/bots)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: five 'fire' emojis. Emoji-only comments convey positive sentiment but provide very little signal about genuine audience interest or buying intent. Such comments are commonly left by real followers but are also frequently produced by engagement pods, mass commenters, or purchased comment services because they are low-effort and universally positive. Given a single emoji-only comment, there is insufficient evidence to conclude authenticity or meaningful community engagement. For an advertising decision, this is weak evidence of audience quality. Recommended next steps before committing to ad spend: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts; check commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts, follower/following ratios); compare comment-to-like ratios and posting timestamps for clustering; look for repeated short comments across posts or identical commenters; and review other engagement types (questions, saved/share indicators, conversions). Based on the single comment, treat the influencer as a moderate-to-high risk for inorganic engagement and consider a small test campaign or deeper audit first." }

Text: @erikguenter

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention / tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "To draw a specific user's attention to the post or to share the post with that user. Can be genuine (friend/follower tagging) or mechanical (spam/bot or engagement-for-engagement behavior)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided and it is a single username mention (@erikguenter). That is low-information engagement: it does not express sentiment about the content, indicate purchase intent, or show substantive interaction. Such comments commonly occur for legitimate sharing (a follower notifying a friend) but are also used by low-effort engagement networks, bots, or scripted comment pods to inflate comment counts. Given the absence of varied, substantive comments, it's not possible to confidently assert authenticity — hence a moderate fakeness score and low confidence. For advertising feasibility: this single-tag comment suggests weak qualitative engagement on the post. I recommend requesting more data (full comment list, timestamps, commenter profiles, like counts, follower demographics and engagement rate across multiple recent posts) before making a buy decision. Current assessment: proceed with caution; prioritize influencers with more substantive, diverse, and clearly authentic comments." }

Text: @guderthomas

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user_mention / tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "To notify/tag another user (could be genuine — tagging a friend to view the post — or inorganic — spammy bot tag, engagement pod, or promotional mention)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists solely of a single user handle (@guderthomas). With so little data the signal is weak. A lone mention-style comment often serves one of three purposes: 1) an organic tag where a genuine follower tags someone to draw their attention to the post; 2) a spammy/bot tag intended to increase visibility or drive traffic to a profile; or 3) engagement-pod activity where members tag each other to increase reach. Given absence of additional contextual cues (no accompanying text, no emoji, no multiple comments or replies, no visible pattern of similar tags) I assign a moderately high fakeness likelihood (60/100) because single-handle comments are commonly used by low-effort spam or inorganic engagement, but there remains a plausible genuine use. Confidence is moderate (65) because fuller assessment requires: commenter profile inspection (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), comment timing patterns, distribution of comment types across other posts, and overall engagement metrics (likes, saves, views). Overall advertising-feasibility score is low (35/100) with moderate confidence (55/100) because meaningful audience interest and authentic engagement cannot be demonstrated from a single mention comment. Recommendation: before deciding on ad spend, examine a larger sample of the influencer's recent posts and comments, verify the commenters' accounts for authenticity, check comment-to-follower ratio, and look for substantive comments (questions, praise, purchase-related intent) and real conversations that indicate an engaged audience." }

Text: 👏wertvoll!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive_praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/endorsement of the post's content (short positive reaction)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: '👏wertvoll!' (German for 'valuable') with an applause emoji. This is a brief, positive endorsement likely from a follower who appreciated the content. The comment's brevity and generic nature slightly raise the possibility it could be routine/low-effort engagement or from an account that routinely leaves short compliments, but there is no clear sign of automation or spam from this single datum — hence a low fakeness rating (15). Confidence in that fakeness assessment is moderate (65) because one comment is an insufficient sample to detect coordinated/fake activity. For advertising-feasibility, the dataset is too small to make a strong judgment; the post shows at least some positive reaction, so preliminary suitability is middling (overall score 45) but with low confidence (40). Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: audit multiple recent posts for comment diversity, commenter account authenticity (profiles, follower counts, posting history), engagement rates (likes/comments/views) vs follower count, timing patterns, language and geographic match to your target audience, presence of meaningful conversation (questions, saved/share/long comments), and any sudden follower spikes. Conduct a follower overlap and audience demographic check to confirm real reach and relevance." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "express positive reaction/affection and provide lightweight engagement (likes-equivalent); little substantive feedback or conversation" } ], "interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment consisting of repeated heart-eyes emojis (\"😍😍😍😍\"). Emoji-only comments are common and can come from genuine fans, casual followers, engagement pods, or low-effort/bot accounts. Because there is only one comment, the dataset is too small to draw strong conclusions about authenticity or audience quality. The comment signals positive sentiment but has no informational value about audience fit, purchase intent, or credibility. For an advertising decision, this single shallow comment should be treated as neutral-to-weak evidence. Recommended next steps: inspect a larger sample of recent comments for diversity (questions, tagged friends, long-form praise vs. repeated emojis), check commenter profiles for authenticity (profile pics, posting history, follower counts), analyze engagement rate relative to follower count, look for patterns of identical comments across posts (bot/engagement farm signal), and request influencer metrics (reach, saves, shares, demographics). Based on the single emoji comment alone I assign a moderate likelihood of being non-genuine or low-quality engagement (fakeness score 40) but with low confidence; overall suitability for ad spend based solely on this comment is low (score 40) and also low confidence. Conduct a broader audit before proceeding." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Generic positive reaction (emoji)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show appreciation/approval and provide lightweight engagement (social proof); often used to signal support without substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a single heart emoji. This is a low-effort positive reaction that increases visible engagement but conveys no substantive sentiment, intent to buy, or audience quality. Such comments are common both from genuine followers and from automated/batched engagement (engagement pods, bots) because they are quick and safe to post. With only this data point, I assess a moderate probability of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 40) because hearts are easy to fake, but many real users also leave emoji reactions. Confidence in that fakeness assessment is moderate (55) due to lack of contextual signals.\n\nFor advertising feasibility, the evidence is insufficient. A single heart gives almost no insight into audience relevance, conversion likelihood, commenter authenticity, comment diversity, or engagement depth, so the overall suitability for ad purchase is low (overall_score 25) with low confidence (30).\n\nRecommended next steps before any buying decision: obtain more data — number of comments and likes, comment timestamps, commenter profile details (follower counts, posting history), ratio of meaningful vs. generic comments, engagement rate relative to follower count, and examples of comments in multiple recent posts. Also check for repetitive short comments across many posts (sign of bots) and audience demographics/relevance to your product." }

Text: This is i want,tksss!!!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive/expressive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses desire/interest and thanks (enthusiastic reaction), likely intended to show approval or intent to obtain the product/service." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"This is i want,tksss!!!\" reads as a brief, enthusiastic endorsement but contains non-standard grammar and a misspelling ('tksss' plausibly 'thanks' or 'tks'). These features are ambiguous: they can indicate either a genuine excited (possibly non-native) user or a low-effort/bot-style response. The brevity, heavy punctuation, and typo increase the probability of being low-effort or automated, but with only one comment and no account metadata, timing, or pattern information, confidence is low. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this lone comment is weak evidence of authentic audience engagement. Recommend analyzing more comments, commenter account quality (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), comment timing and repetition across posts, and overall engagement rate before making buy/sponsor decisions." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval/encouragement; low informational value. Could be a genuine quick reaction, a passive follower engagement, or low-effort/bot engagement (engagement pod or automated like)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of two applause emojis was provided. This is a positive but non-substantive signal: it shows engagement but contains no qualitative feedback, intent to purchase, or indication of audience quality. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts, engagement pods, or bots. Given the extremely small sample size, the fakeness assessment has low confidence. For advertising decisions, this single comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommend reviewing a larger set of comments (variety of wording, questions, calls-to-action), commenter account profiles (follower counts, activity, profile photos, posting history), timing/patterns of comments, and like-to-comment ratios before making a purchase decision." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive emotion/liking of the post. Low-information engagement that signals approval but provides no substantive feedback; could be from a genuine follower, a friend, or an automated/generic engager (bot or engagement pod)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: two heart emojis (\"❤️❤️\"). This is a generic positive reaction which minimally signals engagement but carries little evidence of authentic audience interest in details (no product mention, no question, no purchase intent). Such low-effort emoji comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots, friends, or coordinated engagement groups. Given a single, content-free comment it's not possible to reliably verify authenticity — hence a moderate fakeness score and low confidence. For advertising purchase feasibility: this single comment is a weak positive signal and insufficient to support investment decisions. Recommendation: collect more data — total comments, unique commenters, comment diversity (questions, product mentions), commenter account quality (age, follower counts, activity), likes-to-followers ratio, and comment timestamps — before making an ad buying decision." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses admiration/affection; low-effort engagement that increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback. Can come from genuine followers or low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The provided comment is a single emoji-only engagement (five heart-eyes emojis). Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous: they can reflect genuine positive reaction from a real follower, or they can be low-effort/bot-generated engagement intended to inflate apparent activity. With only one comment and no commenter metadata, it's not possible to confidently classify it as real or fake. For advertising feasibility this specific comment provides almost no signal about audience quality, conversion intent, or the authenticity of the influencer's community. Recommendation: obtain more data before making buy decisions — e.g., total likes, number of comments, diversity and timing of comments, commenter profiles (activity, follower counts), engagement rates across multiple posts, and any repeated patterns of identical emoji comments. With that data you can better judge whether engagement is organic (higher ad value) or artificially boosted (lower ad value)." }

Text: Uuuhhhhh das ist gut 👏👏😍😍😍 Dankeeeeee

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive / Compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval and enthusiasm; provide social proof and engagement (likes/positive sentiment)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Uuuhhhhh das ist gut 👏👏😍😍😍 Dankeeeeee') is an enthusiastic, emoji-rich compliment. Characteristics (elongated words, multiple emojis, informal spelling) lean toward a genuine excited follower rather than a templated bot message. There are no links, generic marketing phrases, or repeated patterns that typically signal inorganic comments. However, with only one data point it's unsafe to generalize about the post's comment authenticity or the influencer's overall engagement quality. For ad-buy decisions, this single positive comment is a weak signal of real community interest. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), temporal patterns, repetition across posts, and the ratio of comments-to-likes to better estimate authenticity and audience value." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive reaction / appreciation. Low-effort engagement used to signal support or increase visible activity; can come from genuine followers, engagement pods, or bots." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: two heart emojis. Emoji-only comments are low-information: they show a positive reaction but do not indicate genuine interest in content, intent to purchase, or thoughtful engagement. Such comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots, mass-liking accounts, or engagement pods because they are easy to leave and help inflate apparent engagement. Given a single emoji comment, I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood (60/100) but with limited confidence (40/100) because there is not enough context. For advertising-feasibility I score overall lower (40/100) with modest confidence (35/100): this single data point is not a strong signal of an engaged, promotional-ready audience. Recommended next steps before any buy decision: analyze a larger sample of comments across recent posts, inspect commenter accounts for authenticity (profile completeness, follower/following ratio, posting history, comment repetitiveness), compare likes-to-comments ratios, check comment timing patterns and repetition across posts, and review audience demographics and past campaign performance. With those additional data points you can produce a higher-confidence recommendation." }

Text: Besten Dank 😌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Gratitude/Thank-you", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation or acknowledgement of the post; lightweight positive engagement." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Besten Dank 😌\" (German for \"Many thanks\"). This is a brief, natural-seeming expression of gratitude that typically indicates a genuine follower interaction or a polite reply. It is not a persuasive sales comment, explicit promotion, or obvious bot-template phrase. However, a single short comment provides very little signal about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. The modest fakeness score reflects that the comment appears more genuine than fabricated, but confidence is low because one data point is insufficient to conclude whether the account’s comment section contains inauthentic activity (e.g., repeated generic comments, purchased comments, or bot farms). For advertising feasibility, this single comment is not enough evidence to recommend purchase: you should inspect more data points — comment volume and diversity across posts, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), repetition of identical phrases, like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and replies — before deciding. Recommended next steps: gather a sample of comments from multiple recent posts, check for repeating text or many short generic replies, and review commenters' profiles to validate real followers." }

Text: Das war jetzt die Rettung!! 😮👏🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive_reaction / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation/excitement and provide positive social feedback (encouragement/approval)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Das war jetzt die Rettung!! 😮👏🔥\" reads as a spontaneous positive reaction (\"That was a lifesaver/what a relief\") with natural punctuation and multiple expressive emojis. That pattern is typical of a genuine follower expressing gratitude or enthusiasm rather than a templated bot comment. Given only one comment, however, this is a very small sample and cannot be generalized to the influencer's overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Recommendation: analyze a larger set of comments (volume, diversity, timing, user profiles), like-to-comment ratios, and account follower characteristics before making an advertising purchase decision. Current signal: positive but weak due to insufficient sample size." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise / positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/encouragement and boost visible engagement; no substantive feedback or indication of purchase intent. Could be from a genuine follower, casual fan, or low-effort/bot account." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (five clapping emojis) is a generic positive reaction. Emoji-only comments signal engagement but carry low informational value about audience quality, interest in products, or likelihood to convert for advertising. Such comments are common from genuine followers as quick praise, but they are also commonly produced by low-effort accounts or engagement farms. With only one comment available, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. I assess a moderate probability of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 45) but with low confidence (40) because there is insufficient context: no commenter profile data, no comment diversity, no timestamps, and no like-to-comment ratios. Overall suitability for advertising based on this single comment is low (overall_score 30) with low confidence (35). Recommendation: collect more data — full comment list, commenter account audits (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), engagement rates (likes, saves, reach), and comment content diversity — before making an advertising purchase decision." }

Text: 👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (👏)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Generic positive feedback / engagement (low-effort). Functions to signal approval and boost visible engagement; can be from a genuine follower or a low-effort/bot account." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is present and it is a single clapping emoji. Emoji-only comments are common and serve as lightweight positive engagement, but they provide no demographic or intent signal and are easy for bots or click farms to generate. Given the single low-information comment, the sample is too small to judge audience authenticity or depth of engagement — this points to low-quality comment data for ad targeting. For advertising-feasibility decisions, rely on additional metrics: overall engagement rate (likes/comments vs followers), comment diversity and substance, timing patterns, follower quality (age, activity, follower/following ratios), story views and saves, and account creation/behavior signals. With current data, treat the post's comment section as weak evidence of a real, engaged audience; proceed with caution or request more data before purchasing ad placements." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji applause (👏)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/encouragement; lightweight engagement with little informational value; can function to boost visible engagement metrics." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short emoji comment was provided. Emoji-clapping comments commonly indicate quick positive reactions but carry very little signal about genuine audience interest or purchase intent. They can be genuine (real followers quickly applauding) or produced by low-effort bot or paid-engagement accounts — there is not enough context (commenter profile, comment timing, other comments, like counts) to reliably distinguish. Given the single generic comment, the comment set is weak evidence of authentic, engaged community and therefore provides low confidence for ad-buying decisions. Recommended next steps to improve assessment: fetch full comment list, commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history), comment timestamps and diversity, and like/reply patterns. Without that, treat this post's comments as low-quality input for influencer ROI estimation." }

Text: Ich kann alles

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "self-expression / generic short statement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Personal expression or attention-seeking; minimal engagement that does not reference the post content (could be a motivational claim, a troll remark, or low-effort bot output)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: \"Ich kann alles\" (\"I can do anything\"). That comment is short, generic and not specific to the post content, which makes its intent ambiguous. Possibilities: a genuine user posting a brief personal/motivational remark; an attention-seeking or trolling message; or automated/low-quality engagement from a bot or account farm that posts generic phrases. Because there is only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. The moderate fakeness score reflects this ambiguity: the comment exhibits features often seen in inorganic engagement (generic wording, lack of contextual connection) but could also be authentic. For advertising feasibility: this single comment suggests low-quality or irrelevant engagement rather than meaningful audience interaction. I recommend collecting a larger sample of comments, checking commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), looking for repeated phrasing across comments, and examining likes/replies and time patterns before making a buy decision. Current overall score is low (35/100) with only moderate confidence; do not base an advertising purchase solely on this evidence." }

Text: Danke für den Reminder🙌☺️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Thank-you / Positive acknowledgment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express gratitude and acknowledge the post; shows positive engagement but is generic and non-specific." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Danke für den Reminder🙌☺️') is a brief, positive acknowledgement that most often indicates a genuine follower reacting politely. Its generic nature, however, provides little signal about audience quality or purchase intent and could also appear in bot-driven or engagement-pod activity if repeated across many posts. Given only one comment, confidence is low — this is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or influencer suitability for advertising. Recommended next steps: examine a larger sample of comments (volume, diversity of language and content, specificity), check commenter account quality (age, posts, follower/following ratio), look for repeated phrases or timing clusters, and review like-to-comment ratios and comment replies before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: 🤔 das kann ich nicht 🙈

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal reaction / emotional engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal feeling (inability) and mild engagement with the post; not promotional, no direct question or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"🤔 das kann ich nicht 🙈\" (German: \"I can't do that\" with thinking and see‑no‑evil emojis). This appears to be a genuine, context‑dependent personal reaction rather than a bot/spam or promotional comment — it contains natural language, emojis, and no generic praise or callouts typical of fake engagement. Fakeness is assessed low (score 10) but with moderate-to-high confidence because the sample is extremely small. For advertising feasibility the signal is weak: the comment does not indicate purchase intent, brand affinity, or influencer advocacy. With only one comment we cannot judge broader audience sentiment, engagement quality, or follower authenticity. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, metrics (likes, saves, follower count, engagement rate), and audience demographics; check for repeated/templated comments across posts to better assess fakeness and ad suitability." }

Text: Danke dir , habe es mir gespeichert 👏🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "appreciation / saved bookmark", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses thanks and indicates the commenter saved/bookmarked the post for later — positive organic engagement and content utility signal." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Danke dir , habe es mir gespeichert 👏🙌') appears genuine: it's specific, in natural language (German), and communicates that the user saved the post — a valuable engagement metric. Fakeness likelihood is low (score 10) but confidence is limited because the sample size is one comment. For influencer advertising feasibility this is a positive sign (shows content is perceived as useful), but one comment is insufficient to judge overall engagement authenticity or audience quality. Recommend analyzing a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), like/save ratios, comment diversity, repetition of phrases/emojis, and temporal patterns before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses admiration/positive reaction with no substantive content; functions as low-effort engagement to signal approval and boost visible metrics." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: four heart‑eyes emojis. Emoji‑only comments are common and ambiguous — they can come from genuine followers offering quick praise or from low‑effort/bot accounts intended to inflate engagement. With a single short emoji there is very little signal about audience quality, sentiment depth, or purchase intent. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji comments are frequently automated or copied across posts, but they are also used naturally by real users; without commenter metadata (account age, follower count, comment frequency), timing (many identical comments posted quickly), or additional diverse comments, confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility: this single comment is weak evidence of an engaged, valuable audience. Recommend collecting more data — number and variety of comments, comment-to-follower ratio, commenter profiles, engagement consistency across posts, and presence of meaningful conversations — before deciding to purchase advertising. Based on the provided comment alone, I rate the post's comment-driven advertising suitability low (around 30/100) with moderate confidence." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses enthusiasm/approval with no substantive information; primarily signal of positive sentiment or quick engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three fire emojis (\"🔥🔥🔥\"). This is a generic positive reaction with very low informational content. Such emoji-only comments are common from genuine fans but are also frequently left by bots or low-effort engagement farms because they are quick, universal, and safe. Given the tiny sample size, authenticity cannot be confidently determined. Indicators that raise suspicion: lack of text, no context, and no additional comments to show conversational depth or specificity. For advertising feasibility, this single emoji comment provides weak evidence of meaningful audience engagement or purchase intent. Recommended next steps: examine the commenter account(s) for follower count, post history, and engagement patterns; check the full comment set on the post for repetition of identical emojis or phrasing; compare comment-to-like ratio and timing distribution of comments; and look for substantive comments (questions, testimonials, tagged users) that indicate real interest. Based on available data, treat the comment-level engagement as low-quality and require further verification before relying on this influencer for ad spend." }

Text: 🔥👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (praise/approval)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/support; boost visible engagement (likes/comments) without substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is two positive emojis (fire and clapping). Emoji-only comments indicate engagement and positive sentiment but provide very little informational value about audience authenticity or intent. Such low-effort reactions are common from genuine followers but are also easy for bots or paid engagement services to generate, so they carry moderate risk of being non-organic. Given only one short emoji comment, there is insufficient evidence to conclude the audience quality or engagement authenticity for ad-buy decisions. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments across posts, examine commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, diversity), look for repeated wording/emojis, timestamps (burst behavior), ratio of substantive comments to emoji-only comments, and compare like-to-comment rates. Current single-comment signal: mildly positive but weak; not reliable for confirming influencer suitability for advertising without further data." }

Text: 😍😍😍🔥👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enthusiasm/approval and boosts visible engagement; low informational content. Such comments can originate from genuine followers, casual viewers, engagement pods, or automated accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (😍😍😍🔥👏) is a generic, positive emoji-only reaction. This is a low-effort form of engagement that increases visible engagement but provides no substantive testimonial or conversational value. Emoji-only comments are commonly used by genuine casual followers, but they are also frequently produced by engagement pods or automated/placeholder accounts, hence the moderate fakeness score and limited confidence. Because the sample is extremely small (one comment), this is insufficient to judge overall audience quality. For advertising-buy decisions, rely on broader signals: volume and variety of comments across multiple recent posts, depth of conversations, commenter account quality (real profiles, follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, follower growth patterns, and engagement consistency. Recommendation: do not base a buy solely on this comment; perform a deeper audit or run a small paid test with tracking before committing larger ad spend." }

Text: 🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "express approval/enthusiasm; quick engagement signal with low informational value (can boost visibility but does not indicate purchase intent)" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it is two fire emojis (\"🔥🔥\"). Emoji-only reactions are common authentic responses but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or mass-liking accounts because they require minimal effort and provide visible engagement. With a single short emoji comment there is high uncertainty: this does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, intent to purchase, or conversational community. Given the limited sample, the measured fakeness leans toward moderate (some risk of inauthenticity) but confidence is low. For advertising purchase decisions, this single comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, real audience. Recommended next steps before buying: review a larger sample of recent comments (look for variety, conversational threads, account profiles), check comment timestamps for unnatural bursts, compare likes-to-comments ratio, inspect follower quality (real accounts vs. bots), and examine additional metrics (story views, saves, CTRs). Based on the available data, I would rate this post as low suitability for ad spend until further engagement and audience quality checks are completed." }

Text: Sind diese Übungen auch noch bei Arthrose 4. Grades zu empfehlen?? Ich suche grad sehr nach Möglichkeiten die Knien möglichst gut zu unterstützen. Danke dir für deine Tipps! 🙋🏼‍♀️🙏🏽

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 5, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Question / engagement (medical inquiry)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Seeks specific medical applicability (are these exercises safe/effective for grade 4 osteoarthritis). Signals genuine need for help, intent to apply advice and potential interest in related products/services (knee support, rehab programs)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment appears authentic: written in natural German, specific medical detail (Arthrose 4. Grades) and a personal request for usable advice, which is typical of real followers rather than bots or paid generic comments. This is a positive signal for advertisers in the health/orthopedics/rehab niche because it shows topic-relevant engagement and potential purchase intent for knee-support solutions. However, this assessment is based on one comment only — the sample is too small to generalize about the overall comment quality or audience authenticity. Recommended next steps before a buying decision: analyze a larger set of recent comments (volume, variety, language patterns), check commenter profiles for real accounts and history, measure influencer response rate and quality of answers, and compare like-to-comment ratios and timing patterns to detect inorganic activity." }

Text: 🔥🔥👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/generic praise; boosts visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback. Such short emoji comments are commonly left by casual followers or automated/batch accounts." } ], "interpretation": "The single available comment (\"🔥🔥👏\") is a generic emoji-only reaction. These comments increase visible engagement but carry little informational value about audience interest or purchase intent. Emoji-only engagement is commonly produced by casual followers and is also frequently found in bot-generated or engagement-farm activity; therefore there is a moderate-to-high risk the comment is not meaningful organic conversation. Given only this one comment to analyze, confidence is limited. For an advertising decision, this sample suggests weak qualitative engagement — request more context (multiple posts, comment diversity, commenter account profiles, timing patterns, saves/shares, story interactions, follower growth) before committing budget. If most comments on the account resemble this (short emojis, repetitive praise, few questions or detailed reactions), treat engagement as low-quality and demand stronger proof of real audience interest or consider smaller test campaigns." }

Text: 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive reaction/approval; low-effort engagement intended to show support and contribute to visibility (social proof) without substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a low-effort positive emoji (🙌). This signals supportive engagement but provides almost no information about audience quality, intent, or conversion potential. Emoji-only comments are common from both genuine followers and automated/batch accounts, so there is a moderate probability it could be inorganic. Given only one comment and no surrounding context (total likes, follower count, commenter profile, comment diversity, timing, repetition patterns), the sample is insufficient to judge influencer authenticity or advertising suitability. Recommendation: inspect the commenter account(s) (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), measure engagement rate (likes + comments relative to follower count), look for diverse, specific comments, and analyze comment timestamps and repetition before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: 👌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Minimal affirmative engagement (approval/like). Low informational value; often used to signal support quickly. Can be posted by genuine followers or by low-effort/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single emoji comment (👌) is available. This provides very limited signal: it indicates positive reaction but no substantive engagement, audience intent, or purchase interest. Emoji-only comments are common both from real followers and from automated/low-effort accounts, so the likelihood of fakery is moderate (fakeness_score 55) but confidence is low because the sample size is one. For advertising decisions, this alone is weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommend further checks before purchase: volume and diversity of comments across multiple posts, commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, activity), comment-to-like ratio, timing/patterns of comments, and language/repetition patterns. With current data the post rates low–moderate for ad feasibility (overall_score 35) and that assessment has low confidence." }

Text: 👏Mega gut

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short positive/generic compliment (emoji + brief praise)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/encouragement and provide lightweight engagement (boosts visible activity and signals positive sentiment)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment '👏Mega gut' is a brief, positive reaction that uses an emoji and a generic praise phrase. This pattern commonly appears from real followers offering quick encouragement but is also typical of automated or low-effort accounts and mass-engagement bots. Given only one comment to evaluate, there is moderate likelihood it is genuine (simple localized language + emoji) but a non-negligible chance it is generic/automated. Confidence in this assessment is low because there is no context: no commenter profile data, no comment volume, timing, or repetition patterns to analyze. Overall ad-feasibility assessment is cautious (score ~45): the comment alone does not demonstrate strong, authentic audience engagement or meaningful conversation, so I would not rely on this single data point for an advertising purchase decision. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, inspect commenter profiles for unique accounts vs. likely bots (profile pictures, posts, follower/following ratios, comment diversity), check engagement rate relative to follower count, and look for substantive comments and conversations that indicate real interest." }

Text: 👏👏👏👏👏👏🔥😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort positive reaction to the post (applause, excitement, admiration). Mainly serves to boost visible engagement metrics rather than provide substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it contains only emojis (👏👏👏👏👏👏🔥😍). Emoji-only comments are common among genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or purchased interactions because they are low-effort and broadly applicable. With only this data point: - Likelihood of being fake is moderate (score 60) because the comment provides no context, no unique phrasing, and is the kind of content often used to inflate metrics. - Confidence is limited (50) because one comment is an extremely small sample and could equally be a real fan reaction. For advertising decisions this comment is weak evidence of a high-quality, authentic audience: it signals positive sentiment but no depth, intent to buy, or conversation. Recommendation: do not base a buy decision on this alone. Obtain more evidence — sample multiple posts, analyze commenter profiles (real followers vs newly created accounts, follower counts, posting history), check comment timing patterns, ratio of likes-to-comments, and use an engagement-authenticity tool or manual spot-checks. If most comments on multiple posts look like this (repetitive emoji-only, same users, new accounts), downgrade advertiser suitability significantly; if instead comments are varied, conversational, and from established accounts, reassess upward." }

Text: Tolle Übungen ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive / praise with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "express appreciation for content (social proof), lightweight engagement to signal approval" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Tolle Übungen ❤️❤️') is a brief, positive compliment in German with heart emojis. This is typical of genuine follower responses (simple praise + emojis) and carries low apparent signs of automation (natural language, language match likely to account). However, with only one comment available we have very limited signal: it shows some positive reception but is insufficient to conclude strong, authentic community engagement or to validate advertising effectiveness. Recommendation: inspect a larger sample of recent comments, commenter accounts (profile age, follower counts, comment patterns), like-to-follower ratio, comment diversity (questions, critiques, tags), and timing to better assess authenticity and audience value before purchasing ads. Current assessment: low likelihood of fake comment (fakeness_score 10) but low overall suitability for ad spend based solely on this evidence (overall_score 30)." }

Text: 🫶🙏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive_emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expression of affection/thanks/support; low-effort engagement to show approval or maintain visibility" } ], "interpretation": "На основе единственного комментария «🫶🙏» можно сделать лишь ограниченные выводы. Такой комментарий — типичный низкоинтеллектуальный знак поддержки: выражение симпатии или благодарности, часто используется реальными подписчиками, но также встречается у ботов и у людей, выполняющих массовые «лайк/коммент» действия. Оценка фейковости (30/100) отражает, что emoji-комментарии чаще настоящие, но дают мало информации для верификации. Уверенность в этом выводе средняя (60/100) из‑за ограниченности данных. Общая пригодность ленты комментариев для принятия решения по рекламе низкая (35/100) с умеренной уверенностью (45/100) — один эмодзи не показывает вовлечённости аудитории, качество аудитории или конверсию. Рекомендации: проанализировать выборку (50–200) последних комментариев на нескольких постах, проверить профили комментаторов (реальные фото, активность, посты), распределение времён комментариев, наличие повторяющихся текстов/эмодзи, соотношение лайков/показы и воспользоваться инструментами для проверки ботов/фальшивых подписчиков. Только на основе широкой выборки можно дать надёжный вердикт по пригодности инфлюенсера для размещения рекламы." }

Text: 🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only (fire emojis)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses enthusiasm/approval; low-effort engagement that signals positive reaction but conveys no specific information or intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment provided (\"🔥🔥\") is a generic positive reaction. Emoji-only comments are common among genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or purchased comment packages because they require no personalization. Given only one example, there is limited signal to distinguish authentic fan engagement from inorganic activity. Fakeness is assessed as moderately likely (60) but with low confidence (35) because of the small sample and lack of account metadata, timing, or accompanying likes/replies. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single comment is weak evidence: it shows positive sentiment but no product-specific interest, intent, or meaningful conversation. Overall suitability for ad purchase is low-to-moderate (35) with low confidence (30). Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, comment diversity (length, specificity), commenter account quality (age, follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratios, comment timestamps, and look for mentions of the product or purchase intent before making a buy decision." }

Text: Die erste Übung fällt mir unglaublich schwer😮 aber ich bleibe dran 👏 danke für deine Arbeit!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 85, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine user feedback / engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses difficulty with the exercise, states intent to continue, and thanks the content creator — indicates personal use of the content and appreciation." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment appears authentic: specific reference to 'the first exercise', natural phrasing in German, and use of emojis (😮 👏) and a thank-you make it unlikely to be generic or bot-driven. Fakeness score is low (10) with fairly high confidence (85%) given these signals. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience quality or engagement patterns. The overall assessment (55) reflects positive, genuine-seeming engagement but limited evidence: promising for niche/organic influence but insufficient alone to justify ad spend. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: review a larger sample of recent comments (50–200), check like-to-comment ratios, reply behavior from the influencer, follower quality (activity and demographics), and look for patterns of repetitive/generic comments that would raise fakeness concerns." }

Text: Sehr gute Auswahl und Zusammenfassung, danke ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Appreciation / Positive feedback", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses thanks and approval of the post content (engagement, social proof)." } ], "interpretation": "There is a single comment: \"Sehr gute Auswahl und Zusammenfassung, danke ❤️\". It is brief, positive, and references the post content (“Auswahl und Zusammenfassung”), which suggests it is likely genuine rather than a generic bot message. The heart emoji and the explicit thanks increase perceived authenticity. However, with only one comment provided, the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall comment quality or authenticity on the influencer's posts. No clear bot signatures (spammy links, repeated hashtags, generic single-word praise, or inorganic phrasing) are present, but short positive comments can sometimes be automated or purchased in bulk — hence a modest fakeness score rather than zero. For advertising feasibility, a single positive comment is mildly encouraging but insufficient: additional data needed includes total comment volume, comment diversity (different users, languages, unique content), timing patterns, follower quality, and presence of repeated or identical comments across multiple posts. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent posts (50–100 comments), check for repetitive phrasing, map commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), and inspect engagement rate versus follower count before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: Was ist das für eine Musik...gefällt mir sehr gut

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine_question_compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Ask about the music used and express positive feedback/interest" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Was ist das für eine Musik...gefällt mir sehr gut\" reads as a genuine engagement: it asks a specific question (what music is that) and gives a positive reaction. Linguistic cues (complete sentence, specific question, no generic emojis or repetitive marketing phrases) lower the likelihood of it being fake. However, assessment is limited by sample size — one comment is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising decisions, this single genuine comment is a weak positive signal but not enough evidence of reliable, scalable organic engagement. I recommend obtaining a larger sample (full comment set, like counts, follower numbers, engagement rate over time, repeated comment patterns) before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Leider komm ich nicht auf den Boden, bzw wieder auf 😢

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 65, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal / emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express a personal difficulty and empathize with the content (shows genuine, situational engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Leider komm ich nicht auf den Boden, bzw wieder auf 😢') reads as a genuine personal reaction—someone saying they cannot get down to or back up from the floor, with a sad emoji indicating sincerity. This is likely authentic (low fakeness score) rather than a bot/promo message, but the assessment is limited by the very small sample (one comment). For advertising feasibility: the comment quality (authentic emotional engagement) is positive, but the quantity and diversity of comments are unknown, so overall suitability for ad purchase is moderate. Recommend collecting more comments, commenter profiles, like counts, overall engagement rate, and comment-to-follower ratios before making a purchase decision." }

Text: Das Video kommt gerade richtig für mich! Danke, habe aus heiterem Himmel eine Blockade

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine personal reaction / appreciative comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express gratitude and indicate personal relevance/emotional resonance with the content (likely organic engagement, not promotional)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Das Video kommt gerade richtig für mich! Danke, habe aus heiterem Himmel eine Blockade\" (English: \"The video comes at just the right time for me! Thanks, I suddenly have a block out of the blue\"). The language is natural, specific and personal, lacking generic marketing phrasing, excessive emojis, or obvious templated structure — all signals consistent with a genuine user reaction. With a single short comment, automated/fake indicators are weak, so estimated fakeness is low (10) but confidence is moderate (65) because more data is needed for a robust assessment. For advertising-feasibility, the available evidence is insufficient: the comment shows positive resonance but there is no volume, no brand mentions, no calls-to-action, and no information about commenter accounts or wider engagement. That yields a cautious overall score of 35 (confidence 50). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles for follower counts/behavior, measure like-to-follower ratios and comment diversity, and look for patterns of repetitive or promotional comments before making a buy decision." }

Text: 🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/celebration/support; low-effort engagement that signals positive sentiment but provides no substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: the raised-hands emoji (🙌). This is a low-information, low-effort positive reaction. Such comments are common from genuine followers as quick expressions of approval, but they are also frequently produced by engagement pods or low-value bot accounts because they require minimal effort. Given the single emoji, it's impossible to determine commenter authenticity, follower quality, or real product interest. For advertising-purchase feasibility this comment is weak evidence of meaningful audience engagement. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting patterns), look for conversational replies, varied and specific praise or questions, and examine overall engagement rate and reach before making a buy decision." }

Text: @edilych

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user_mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging another account — likely intended to notify or draw that user's attention; could be a genuine friend-tag, a conversational prompt, cross-promotion, or low-effort spam/bot behavior." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a bare account mention (@edilych). With one short mention there is very limited signal. Single-tag comments are low-effort engagement and are commonly used for (a) real users tagging friends to view the post, (b) users prompting others to engage, (c) cross-promotion by accounts tagging each other, or (d) automated/spam accounts that drop handles. Because there is no additional content (no emoji, question, praise, or specific reference to the post) this comment leans toward low-information engagement and raises moderate suspicion of inauthenticity, but the evidence is weak. For influencer-advertising decisions you should not rely on this single data point. Recommended next steps: inspect the tagged account (@edilych) for authenticity (profile completeness, follower/following ratio, posting history), fetch a larger sample of comments for the post (diversity, content, timing), compare comment types (mentions vs. substantive comments), check likes-to-comments ratio, look for repetitive or templated comments across posts, and request reach/impression/saves metrics from the influencer. Given the current limited input, I assign a moderate fakeness score (60/100) with low-medium confidence and a conservative overall suitability score for advertising (30/100) with low confidence. Additional data could move both scores substantially." }

Text: Okay, ich brauche leider eine neue Wohnung

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Personal / Aspirational reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express admiration/envy and a real-life intent (needs a new apartment). Signals emotional resonance with the post and a potential real-world lead for housing, home decor, or lifestyle advertisers." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment ('Okay, ich brauche leider eine neue Wohnung') reads as a genuine, human response expressing aspiration or envy — the commenter says they need a new apartment after seeing the post. Language is natural, first-person, specific and shows a concrete intent, so it does not exhibit common bot/fake patterns (repetitive emojis, generic praise, promotional links, or copy-paste text). Fakeness is therefore low (score 15) but confidence is moderate because the analysis is based on only one comment. For advertising feasibility: the comment is a positive signal that the content elicits real emotional reactions and could convert for categories like real estate, rental services, moving companies, furniture, or interior design. However, a single comment is not sufficient to conclude overall audience quality — recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, engagement rate, follower authenticity, and conversion history before purchasing ads. No immediate red flags from this comment alone." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive reaction/admiration and increase visible engagement with a low-effort response" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: five heart‑eyes emojis (😍😍😍😍😍). Emoji‑only comments are common and serve to signal positive sentiment but carry little informative value about audience quality or purchase intent. They can come from genuine fans, casual followers, or automated/bot accounts; there is no textual substance to assess authenticity or relevance. Given the single short comment, the current evidence suggests low information value and raises moderate suspicion of low‑effort or inorganic engagement (hence a mid fakeness score). For an advertising feasibility decision, this sample is insufficient — recommend analyzing a larger comment sample and the commenters' profiles (account age, follower counts, posting activity, comment diversity, timing patterns), overall engagement rate relative to follower count, recurrence of similar emoji comments across posts, and the influencer’s response behavior. Without that deeper check, rely cautiously on this account for paid promotion." }

Text: 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive reaction/approval — expresses applause or encouragement; low informational value. Could be genuine fan engagement, an engagement pod reply, or a bot-generated comment." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists solely of repeated clapping-hand emojis. Emoji-only applause is common across organic audiences (quick positive feedback) but is also frequently produced by engagement pods and low-effort bot accounts. With one example there is high ambiguity: I estimate a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 35) because the format is low-effort and easily automated, but confidence is limited (45) due to lack of context. For advertising-feasibility the evidence from comments is weak: the overall score (40) reflects that emoji-only engagement offers little insight into audience quality, purchase intent, or meaningful interaction. Recommendations: examine more comments for diversity (text, questions, mentions), check commenter account quality (real profile photos, follower counts, posting history), analyze like-to-follower ratio and timing patterns, and look for repetitive identical comments across posts. If many comments are similar emoji-only from accounts with minimal history, treat the audience as likely inflated and proceed with caution for ad spend." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/encouragement; low informational value and likely used to signal engagement to the algorithm or the poster." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three clapping-hand emojis. Emoji-only comments are common, positive but low-effort signals; they indicate some engagement but do not show intent to purchase, detailed interest, or substantive audience reaction. Such comments can be genuine (a casual follower) or easy to fabricate or farm via engagement pods/bots, so the fakeness estimate is moderate (60) with limited confidence (40) because the sample is extremely small. Given this single low-information comment, the overall assessment for advertising purchase feasibility is low (30) with low confidence (35). Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, likes-to-follower ratio, audience demographics, comment diversity (questions, critiques, mentions), and engagement timing to make a reliable ad-buy decision." }

Text: Agradecida por tus recomendaciones 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Appreciation / Positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses gratitude for recommendations; serves as social proof and positive feedback for the influencer's content." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Agradecida por tus recomendaciones 👏👏👏') reads as a straightforward, positive gratitude message and likely comes from a genuine follower. Its wording (first-person gratitude, gendered adjective 'Agradecida') and emoji use are typical of real engagement. However, with only one comment provided the sample is far too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects that this particular comment appears genuine, but the confidence is limited by sample size. For a reliable advertising-feasibility decision, analyze a larger set of comments and commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, comment diversity and complexity, timing patterns, engagement rate relative to follower size). Based on this single data point, the post shows a positive signal but insufficient evidence to recommend purchase without further verification." }

Text: 👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort approval/engagement (expresses a like or acknowledgement without substantive feedback)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: a thumbs-up emoji. This is a generic, low-information engagement that indicates approval or acknowledgement but provides no audience insight (no demographic signals, no product-related feedback, no advocacy). Such comments are commonly genuine but are also easily produced by bots or engagement pods, so with a single instance it's impossible to confidently declare authenticity. Given the paucity of data, the fakeness risk is assessed as low-to-moderate (score 20) but with low confidence. For advertising feasibility this comment provides minimal support — it neither confirms an engaged, relevant audience nor signals effective organic influence. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments and analyze commenter account signals (account age/posts/followers, repetition across posts, timing patterns, language diversity, comment-to-like ratio). Also check for clusters of identical short comments or many emoji-only replies, which raise the likelihood of inauthentic engagement. Based solely on this single emoji comment, I rate the post's comment-driven advertising suitability low (30) with limited confidence; further data needed for a reliable decision." }

Text: @artezzabiscuit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention / tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "referencing or notifying another user — could be a friend tag, referral to a third account, or a promotional shoutout" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment (@artezzabiscuit) is available. This is a simple user mention/tag. Such comments commonly serve to notify or draw a friend's attention, to promote/point to another account, or occasionally to spam/boost visibility. With one example there is high ambiguity: it may be organic (genuine follower tagging a friend or brand) or it may be part of low-effort promotional behavior or automated tagging. Because the sample is minimal, the fakeness estimate is moderate (some risk of non-genuine behavior) but confidence is low. For an advertising decision, this single tagged comment provides very limited evidence of authentic audience engagement or influence. Recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, activity, profile completeness), comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios, and engagement consistency across multiple posts before deciding on ad spend." }

Text: واوووو اول مره تضبط معي

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Positive user testimonial / organic praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express satisfaction and social proof — reporting that the product/solution 'worked for me' for the first time." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (Persian: \"واوووو اول مره تضبط معي\" — \"Wow, it worked for me for the first time\") is short, colloquial and reads like an authentic user reaction / testimonial. It serves as direct positive social proof rather than promotional spam, contains elongated informal spelling (\"واوووو\") typical of a real person, and does not show common bot markers (generic praise, repeated templates, links, or tags). However, this is only one comment — the sample is too small to draw robust conclusions about overall audience quality. Recommendation: gather a larger comment sample, check commenter profiles (age, followers, posting history), look at reply threads and comment timestamps, and compare comment diversity and like-to-comment ratios before deciding on ad spend. Based on this single comment the fakeness risk appears low, but confidence is limited due to insufficient data." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji / applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses approval or congratulations; lightweight engagement intended to signal support and boost visible engagement but gives no substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short emoji-only applause (👏👏👏). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers for quick praise, but they are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or low-effort accounts. With only this one data point, the signal is weak: it raises visible engagement but provides no qualitative information about audience interest, relevance, or purchase intent. For advertising decisions this comment alone should be treated as low-quality evidence of authentic, valuable engagement. Recommend expanding analysis to include: number and diversity of comments, commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, account age), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, reach and view metrics, and any recurring low-effort comment patterns before concluding influencer reliability for paid campaigns." }

Text: Dopamine released successfully

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive emotional reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses a positive, pleasurable response to the content (social reinforcement / endorsement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single visible comment, \"Dopamine released successfully,\" is a short, playful expression of enjoyment — effectively a positive reaction and micro-endorsement of the post. It reads as organic rather than templated promotional language, so fakeness likelihood is low, but confidence is limited because the sample consists of only one comment. For advertising decisions this single comment is weak evidence: it shows the content can elicit a positive emotional response, but does not provide information on comment volume, diversity, audience relevance, or follower authenticity. Recommendation: review a larger set of recent posts (comment volume, variety, repetition patterns), the influencer's follower quality, direct message interactions, and engagement rate before committing to ad spend." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses liking/support; simple engagement signal with no substantive feedback or intent to purchase" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided (a heart emoji). This is a low-information signal: it indicates positive reaction but provides no textual content, no purchasing intent, no audience insight, and is commonly used both by genuine followers and by low-effort/bot accounts. With this single emoji comment I estimate a modest risk of inauthenticity (fakeness 30/100) but with low confidence because the sample size is tiny and context is missing. For advertising purchase feasibility, the evidence is insufficient — I give a cautious overall suitability score of 30/100 with low-to-moderate confidence. Recommendations: obtain the full set of comments, timestamps, commenter handles, follower counts and engagement rates (likes/comments ratio), look for repeated short-form comments (single emojis or single words), check for patterns of new/empty accounts, and run audience authenticity checks (follower quality, geographic/language match). Only after analyzing the full comment distribution and account metrics can a reliable ad-purchase decision be made." }

Text: 101 ways to destroy ur door 😂

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 60, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "humor/sarcastic reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement and engage with the post through a joking remark; signals viewer entertained by content rather than promoting or soliciting." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"101 ways to destroy ur door 😂\" reads as an organic, humorous reaction from a viewer: short, context-specific, uses casual spelling and an emoji — patterns typical of real users rather than bots or paid/promotional accounts. Its purpose is entertainment and engagement (a joke about the content), not endorsement or marketing. Fakeness is assessed low (10/100) because there are no typical synthetic signals (generic praise, repeated hashtags, promotional language, or link spam), but confidence is not maximal because this is only one comment and lacks metadata (account age, follower count, comment timing), so some uncertainty remains. Overall advertising-feasibility is modestly positive (60/100): authentic-sounding comments like this support perceived organic engagement, which is favorable for influencer partnerships; however, a single joking comment does not demonstrate meaningful audience intent, purchase interest, or sustained engagement. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, and engagement rates before making a buying decision." }

Text: Like here plsss

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Engagement-soliciting (like-for-like)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Requesting others to 'like' (increase visibility/engagement); often low-value engagement, used by real users seeking attention or by coordinated pods/bots to inflate metrics." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Like here plsss'. This is a direct solicitation for likes (a like-for-like / visibility-seeking comment). Such comments are common and do not indicate meaningful audience endorsement of content or product. They can come from genuine followers, opportunistic users, members of engagement pods, or automated accounts. Given only this one example, there is insufficient evidence to judge the overall authenticity of the influencer's audience. The presence of engagement-soliciting comments slightly raises the possibility of low-quality or manipulated engagement but is not conclusive. For advertising decisions, rely on broader signals before purchasing: ratio of substantive comments to requests, comment diversity, follower quality (active accounts vs. newly created), engagement rate vs. follower count, historical growth patterns, and results from a small paid test. Recommended action: collect a larger sample of recent comments and follower data; if unavailable, treat this account as unproven and proceed with caution or run a low-budget test campaign." }

Text: Die Übungen kann man gut in den Alltag integrieren 👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 65, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "genuine positive feedback / testimonial", "count": 1, "purpose": "Conveys usefulness/practicality of the content, provides social proof and a mild endorsement that can encourage others to try the exercises; serves as engagement (positive sentiment)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment — \"Die Übungen kann man gut in den Alltag integrieren 👍\" — is specific to the post content, non-generic and context-relevant, which strongly suggests it is authentic user feedback rather than a templated or bot-generated reply. The thumbs-up emoji is natural and the phrasing speaks to practical value, which increases credibility. However, this assessment is based on one comment only: the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising purchase decisions this comment is a positive signal (people find the content useful), but you should verify broader metrics before committing: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter account authenticity (profile age, posts, followers), review like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and follower growth history. Recommended next steps: inspect 50–200 recent comments, run basic bot-detection checks on commenters, and calculate engagement rates relative to follower count to reach a reliable ad-feasibility decision." }

Text: 👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (clapping hands)", "count": 1, "purpose": "expresses approval/encouragement; low-effort positive engagement that can be either genuine fan reaction or generic/comment-pod/bot output" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short emoji comment (👏) is available, which provides very limited signal. Emoji reactions are a common form of real engagement but are also frequently used by low-effort accounts, engagement pods, or bots; on its own this comment is neutral-to-positive but low information. Given the single data point I assign a moderate fakeness risk (45/100) with low confidence (30/100). For advertising decisions you should not rely on this alone — evaluate a larger sample of comments for diversity (longer text, questions, mentions), timing patterns, commenter account quality (age, follower counts, posting history), repetition of identical emojis/comments across posts, and overall engagement rate vs. follower count. Based on only this comment the post shows minimal meaningful audience interaction, so feasibility for advertising is uncertain (overall score 55/100, confidence 30/100)." }

Text: 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji praise / generic positive reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/support and raise visible engagement; low informational content. Could be authentic fan response, engagement-pod comment, or automated/bot-generated." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (five identical clapping emojis) is a generic positive reaction that signals approval but provides no specific feedback or personal connection. Repeated identical emojis are commonly used both by genuine followers and by engagement pods or bots to inflate visible interaction; therefore I assign a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 60) but with limited confidence because this is only one data point (fakeness_confidence 45). For influencer-advertising decisions this single comment is weak evidence: it demonstrates surface engagement but not audience quality, relevance, or purchase intent. Overall assessment is cautious/low (overall_score 40, confidence 30). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for diversity and specificity, check commenter profile activity (age, follower counts, posting history), examine comment timestamps for burst patterns, compare engagement rate to follower count, and look for meaningful interactions (questions, testimonials, tagged friends) before proceeding with ad spend." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses support/affection; low-effort engagement that increases visible interaction but provides little substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The only comment provided is '❤️❤️' — a brief emoji reaction. Such comments are ambiguous: they can be genuine follower expressions of liking or low-effort interactions from passive followers or automated/bot accounts. With a single short emoji there is very little evidence of meaningful audience engagement, conversational depth, or demographic targeting value for advertising decisions. The moderate fakeness score reflects that single-emoji comments are common both among real users and low-quality/bot engagements; confidence is limited because the sample size is one. Overall suitability for ad purchase is low (overall_score 25) because this comment alone does not demonstrate engaged, relevant, or persuasive audience behavior. Recommendation: collect more comment samples, analyze comment diversity and originality, inspect commenter profiles (follower counts, activity, language), compare likes-to-comments ratio, and look for genuine questions or product-related interactions before making an advertising decision." }

Text: 👏👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 55, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "generic emoji applause", "count": 1, "purpose": "show approval/encouragement; low-effort engagement that increases visible engagement metrics without providing substantive feedback" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of clapping emojis is available. This is a very low-information signal: such comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots or low-effort engagement farms to inflate engagement. Given the lack of context (no variety of comments, no textual endorsements, no conversation threads) I lean slightly toward the comment being low-quality/possibly inauthentic (hence a moderate fakeness score), but confidence is limited because one emoji alone cannot reliably indicate fraud. For ad-buy decisions, comments like this are weak positive signals; they raise overall engagement counts but do not demonstrate meaningful audience interest or conversion potential. I recommend deeper checks before trusting this audience for advertising: inspect commenter profiles for authenticity, examine comment diversity and timing patterns across multiple posts, compare likes-to-followers ratio, and look for specific product-related comments or saved/shared indicators." }

Text: @jenselluchti

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 25, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention / tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "bring the post to another user's attention (referral), low-effort engagement; can be organic (friends) or inorganic (engagement pods/spam)" } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is a simple user mention (@jenselluchti). This kind of comment is common and ambiguous: it can indicate genuine organic sharing (someone telling a friend to look at the post) or low-effort, potentially coordinated engagement (engagement pods or bots instructed to tag accounts). With only one short mention there is insufficient signal to confidently label the comments as authentic or fake. The moderate fakeness score reflects that mentions are often used in inorganic engagement tactics, but the low confidence reflects the extremely small sample size and lack of contextual data (other comments, commenter account quality, timestamps, like-to-comment ratios). For an advertising decision, this single comment is not a reliable indicator of audience quality. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter’s profile (account age, follower count, activity), look at full comment set across recent posts for repetition of similar mentions, check timing patterns and like/comment ratios, and request engagement breakdowns (reach, saves, shares) or third-party audience audit before purchase." }

Text: Hilft das auch mit so nem Massageball?

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 80, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Genuine question / user inquiry", "count": 1, "purpose": "Asking about product/tool compatibility and effectiveness (clarification / pre-purchase information / usage advice). Signals real user interest and engagement." } ], "interpretation": "This single comment ('Hilft das auch mit so nem Massageball?') reads as a genuine user question about whether a shown method/product also works with a massage ball. It functions as informational engagement and a potential sign of purchase intent or intent to try. Fakeness likelihood is low — the wording is colloquial and context-specific, which is typical of real users rather than bots or generic paid comments. However, the sample size is one comment, so this is weak evidence: you should verify by sampling more comments, checking commenter account activity (age, follower count, prior interactions), timing patterns, and like/reply metrics. As a single data point this is a modest positive signal for advertising feasibility (some real audience interest), but insufficient to conclude audience quality or campaign-worthiness on its own." }

Text: 😻

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction (heart-eyes cat 😻)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive/affective engagement — low-effort signal of approval or affection; primarily serves to boost visible engagement rather than provide substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single emoji-only comment is available. Emoji reactions are common among genuine followers but are also the easiest form of engagement to generate at scale via bots or engagement pods. With one low-effort comment there is very little signal about audience quality, authenticity, or persuasive power for advertising. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji-only comments are ambiguous: neither strongly authentic nor proof of fraud on their own. Confidence is low because the sample size is one and no metadata (timestamps, commenter profile, follower counts, like counts, comment diversity, or reply behavior) was provided. Recommendation: before deciding on ad spend, review a larger sample of recent posts for comment diversity (length, content relevancy, language match), timing patterns, commenter account quality (age, follower ratio, activity), like-to-follower ratios, and whether the influencer engages back. Run checks for repeated short comments across posts (common sign of inorganic engagement). If most comments are similarly low-effort emojis with many accounts showing suspicious follower metrics, treat the audience as low-value for advertising." }

Text: lol

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "low-effort short reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express amusement/acknowledgement; minimal engagement that increases comment count but gives little social proof or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment ('lol') is available. This is a low-effort, ambiguous reaction common among real users and easy for automated/bot accounts to post. With one short comment there is insufficient signal to assess audience authenticity or campaign suitability. The comment mildly increases surface-level engagement but provides no endorsement, product interest, or meaningful conversation. Recommendations: analyze a larger sample of comments, comment diversity, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, account age), timing patterns, likes on comments, and overall engagement rate (comments + likes relative to followers). Based on the current single-comment sample, I rate the comment set as low-quality evidence for advertising purchase feasibility." }

Text: Aquí los d las piernas curvas ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "compliment/supportive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/appreciation toward the subject (praising appearance — referencing 'piernas curvas' with a heart emoji)." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment \"Aquí los d las piernas curvas ❤️\" reads like a short, positive/supportive remark referencing 'curvy legs' and includes a heart emoji. It likely functions as a compliment or an enthusiastic endorsement of the image/content. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient data to judge overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. The language and informal shorthand make the comment appear genuine rather than clearly bot-generated, but the assessment is low-confidence because single comments are easy to fake and provide no account metadata, timing, or pattern context. For advertising feasibility: this single positive comment is a weak signal. Recommended next steps before purchasing ad space: collect more comments across multiple posts, check commenter account activity (real profiles, followers, post history), measure comment-to-follower ratio and like rates, and look for patterns of repetitive or templated comments. Based on the available evidence, the comments do not raise strong red flags for fakeness but also do not provide strong positive proof of engaged, authentic audience — use caution and gather broader engagement metrics before committing." }

Text: 😮

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express surprise or emotional reaction; low informational/content value; serves as lightweight engagement to signal attention or approval." } ], "interpretation": "The sample consists of a single emoji-only comment (😮). Emoji reactions are common and can be genuine quick responses from real followers, but they are also frequently produced by low-effort accounts and engagement farms because they require minimal effort. With only one comment available, there is very limited signal to judge audience authenticity, sentiment depth, or community engagement. For advertising feasibility this sample is weak: it indicates some reaction but no substantive conversation, no product-related or intent-driving remarks, and no pattern to assess authenticity. Recommendation: request a larger, representative sample of comments and other engagement metrics (likes, saves, comment length distribution, commenter account characteristics) before making an advertising decision." }

Text: Geñio

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short praise / single-word compliment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Positive feedback / show of admiration or support (engagement to flatter the poster)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Geñio' (likely intended as 'Genio' — 'genius' in Spanish). This is a short, positive compliment that signals follower appreciation or casual engagement. With a single, one-word comment there is very little signal to evaluate authenticity or audience quality. The comment could be genuine (a real follower offering praise) or could be low-effort fake engagement (bot or paid commenter), but there is insufficient context — no user metadata, timestamps, repetition patterns, account age, profile activity, or like counts are available to strengthen the assessment. Given that, I assign a low fakeness score (20) but with low confidence (25). For advertising decisions, the available evidence is too limited to rely on; the overall viability score is therefore cautious/neutral (45) with low confidence (20). Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments, analyze commenter profiles (follower counts, avatar, posting history, follower/following ratios), check comment timing and repetition, compare likes-to-comments ratio and historical engagement rates, and look for patterns of generic one-word praise or repeated phrasing across multiple posts which would indicate inauthentic engagement." }

Text: Gracias

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short/generic gratitude", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express thanks — likely follower acknowledgement; could be genuine appreciation or a minimal generic reply used by bots/incentivized accounts to simulate engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Gracias' offers very limited information. One-word gratitude comments are common among genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement farms because they are generic and low-effort. With only this comment and no metadata (commenter profile, follower count, timing, other comments, like-to-comment ratio), the assessment must be cautious: I assign a moderate-low fakeness probability (35) but with low confidence (30). For advertising feasibility the signal is weak — this isolated, low-content comment suggests low-quality comment engagement and is insufficient to conclude the audience is authentic or receptive. Overall suitability for ad purchase is low (25) with low confidence (20). Recommended next steps before any ad decisions: gather full comment set, reviewer profiles, engagement rates over time, and look for varied, specific comments that indicate a real, interested audience." }

Text: Birdagi kop futbol oynagan shuning uchun chunki meniki ham shunde

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 70, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "personal anecdote / relatable reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "To relate to the post by sharing a brief personal observation (explaining similarity: 'he played a lot of football, mine is the same') — conversational engagement rather than promotion or spam." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (in Uzbek/Russian mix) reads roughly as: 'He used to play a lot of football, that's why — mine is the same.' It appears informal, conversational and context-specific, indicating a user relating personally to whatever trait or object is shown in the post. There are no markers of typical fake/comment-farm behavior (no generic praise, emojis-only, repeated short phrases, promotional links, or off-topic hashtags). Given its language, phrasing and specificity it is likely genuine personal engagement. However, this is only one comment — the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising decisions you should request a larger sample (multiple posts, number of unique commenters, comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios and follower quality) because a single, low-volume comment indicates low visible engagement. Recommendations: gather more comments, check for repeated commenters across posts, look at engagement rate vs follower count, and check for sudden spikes or repeated text patterns before relying on this influencer for ad spend." }

Text: But bro I'm football player 😢

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 75, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emotional / personal reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses a personal connection or disappointment (relating to the post); likely genuine engagement from a follower or viewer seeking acknowledgement or reacting empathetically." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'But bro I'm football player 😢'. This reads as a specific, context-dependent, emotionally toned reaction and is unlikely to be generic bot spam. Fakeness is therefore low but assessed from a single sample — confidence is moderate. From an advertising-feasibility perspective this single authentic-seeming comment is a positive signal (shows at least some real engagement), but the sample size is too small to judge overall audience quality, engagement rate, or comment diversity. Recommend analyzing a larger set of recent comments, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created or suspicious), like-to-follower ratio, repetition of phrases/emojis, and timestamps to detect inorganic activity before making an ad purchase decision." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word/short", "count": 1, "purpose": "brief engagement / topic keyword (indicates interest in 'Rückenfit' — back fitness); could be a supportive reaction, shorthand feedback, or low-effort engagement" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available: the single German word 'Rückenfit' (literally 'back-fit' — likely referring to back fitness or a back-health program). This is a very low-effort, single-word comment that can be interpreted in several ways: a genuine viewer signaling topical interest, a shorthand endorsement, or a generic/automated engagement token. With only one short comment there is insufficient evidence to judge the authenticity of the account's engagement reliably. The comment leans neither strongly authentic nor strongly bot-like, so I assign a modest fakeness score (35) with moderate uncertainty. For advertising feasibility the data is likewise limited — a single brief comment does not demonstrate engaged, relevant audience or conversational depth, so I give a cautious overall suitability score of 40. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments (quantity, timestamps, comment authors, follower counts, comment-to-like ratio, and recurring commenters) before making a purchase decision. Look for conversational comments, varied vocabulary, and commenter profiles (real photos, follower activity) to raise confidence." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "ambiguous single-word comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "short positive/keyword engagement — could be a brief endorsement ('back-fit'), a topical tag, or a generic/spam bot message intended to boost engagement or appear relevant" } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Rückenfit' (German; roughly 'back-fit' or 'fit back'). This is a single-word, context-light comment that is ambiguous in intent. Possible interpretations: (a) a genuine, shorthand positive reaction or topical keyword from a real follower interested in back fitness; (b) a keyword-style comment left to increase apparent engagement or visibility (spam/bot); or (c) a commenter referencing a program/product. Given the one-word form and lack of surrounding context (no additional comments, no commenter metadata, no repeated pattern), there is a meaningful risk this is low-effort or automated engagement, so I rate fakeness moderately high (60) but with limited confidence (40) because one comment alone is insufficient to conclude. For influencer advertising decisions this single comment is not reliable evidence of authentic, engaged audience. Recommended next steps before purchase: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (account age, follower/following ratio, activity), check for repetition of similar short comments across posts, and review overall engagement rates (likes/comments per follower). Based on this lone comment, overall suitability for advertising is low to marginal (score 35) with modest confidence (35)." }

Text: @mike0._.0

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "User tagged another account (likely to draw that person's attention to the post or to involve them). Could be organic friend-tagging or low-effort engagement/spam." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it is a single handle mention (@mike0._.0). That pattern is ambiguous: it commonly represents a genuine user tagging a friend to view the post, but it is also a frequent tactic used by low-effort or automated accounts. With only this data point there is insufficient evidence of meaningful, authentic engagement (no text, sentiment, conversation, or multiple distinct commenters). The moderate fakeness score reflects this ambiguity; confidence is low because additional context is missing. Overall comment quality and signal for advertising are poor (low diversity, low interaction), so I rate the comment-level suitability for ad-targeting as low. Recommended next steps before buying advertising: collect full comment set and timestamps, check for repeated/tagged handles across comments, inspect commenter profile(s) for real follower counts and activity, compare comment-to-like ratio across several posts, and review engagement patterns over time." }

Text: Rückenwirbel

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word / ambiguous", "count": 1, "purpose": "Unclear — could be topical (refers to 'Rückenwirbel' = spinal vertebra, relevant if post is about back/health), or a low-effort engagement (bot/spam or shorthand), or a user note. No explicit praise, question, or call-to-action." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: a single German word 'Rückenwirbel' (spinal vertebra). That makes reliable judgment difficult. Possible explanations: 1) The comment is relevant and concise if the post concerns anatomy, physiotherapy, back pain, or similar — then it may be a genuine, topical remark. 2) It may be low-effort engagement from a real user (one-word reaction) or a bot/spam account posting keywords to increase visibility. 3) It might be unrelated or misplaced (commenter mistyped or pasted a keyword). Given the absence of additional comments, commenter profile data, timestamps, or patterns, there is moderate uncertainty. For influencer advertising decisions this single ambiguous comment is a weak signal — it neither demonstrates clear genuine community enthusiasm nor strongly indicates coordinated/inauthentic engagement. I recommend: review more posts for recurring one-word comments, inspect commenter accounts for profile completeness and follower/following ratios, check comment timestamps for bursts, and calculate overall engagement rate before making ad purchase decisions." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short keyword / single-word comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief topical reaction (e.g., 'Rückenfit' = 'back fit') — could be a quick endorsement, a tag/keyword, or low-effort engagement (including possible bot/spam). Ambiguous intent without context." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment ('Rückenfit') is available. Its form (single German word, no emojis, no @mentions, no link) makes it ambiguous: it may be a genuine short reaction from a follower interested in back fitness, or a low-effort/bot-style comment intended to increase apparent engagement. With a single data point you cannot reliably detect patterns (repetition, timing, account quality) that indicate coordinated or fake commenting. For advertising decisions this is weak evidence — low comment volume and an ambiguous comment type suggest limited organic engagement. Recommended next steps before purchase: inspect commenters' profiles (age, follower counts, activity), check comment frequency and repetition across posts, review overall engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), and request audience demographics and recent campaign case studies from the influencer. Based on the current single-comment sample, I would not consider the post's comments a strong signal of authentic, high-quality engagement." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 20, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word topical engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief engagement — either a positive/affirmative reaction referencing 'Rückenfit' (back fitness) or a short keyword/hashtag-like comment. Could be genuine user shorthand or a low-effort promotional/spam comment." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment ('Rückenfit') was provided, so any assessment is highly limited. The comment is a single German compound word meaning 'back-fit' or 'back fitness' and reads like a topical endorsement or keyword. This could be: (1) a genuine, low-effort positive reaction from a real follower, (2) a topical keyword left by a user interested in back fitness, or (3) low-effort spam/bot activity inserting relevant keywords. Given the lack of additional comments, commenter metadata, timing, like counts, reply chains or repeated patterns across posts, I assign a moderate fakeness score (40) but with low confidence (25). For advertising feasibility the current signal is weak — overall score 30 with low confidence (20). Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of recent comments, list of commenters with follower counts and posting history, timing/distribution of comments, like-to-comment ratio, and look for repeated phrases or identical comments across posts. Also review commenter account authenticity (profile picture, bio, posting frequency) before making ad-buy decisions." }

Text: Quero

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Expression of desire / purchase intent", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short, direct indication of wanting the product/service (engagement that may signal interest or intent to acquire)." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Quero' — Portuguese for 'I want') is available. That comment most likely signals user interest or an attempt to engage with the post, but it is ambiguous: it can be a genuine expression of desire, a brief opportunistic comment to appear in the thread, or a low-effort bot/generic engagement. With one data point the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall audience quality or authenticity. The relatively low fakeness score reflects that a simple 'I want' is commonly genuine, but the confidence is limited. For advertising purchase decisions, this evidence is insufficient: recommend auditing a larger set of comments, checking commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), looking for repeated generic comments across posts, analyzing engagement rates over time, and verifying likes-to-comments ratios before making a buy decision." }

Text: Rückenfit🙌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 55, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive comment with emoji", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/enthusiasm about the content (likely referencing back/flexibility/fitness). Signals lightweight engagement rather than solicitation or promotion." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: 'Rückenfit🙌' (German, roughly 'back fit' + celebratory emoji). This is a brief, topical positive reaction consistent with an organic follower praising fitness-related content. It lacks typical automated/bot markers (no repeated phrases, hashtags, links, or generic compliments like 'Nice pic' across many posts), so fakeness risk is low but not zero. Confidence is limited because the sample size is one — you cannot judge overall engagement quality, audience authenticity, or commenting patterns from a single short comment. For ad-buy decisions, this single comment is mildly positive evidence that the audience contains fitness-interested users, but it is insufficient on its own. Recommend obtaining: a larger sample of comments, commenter account checks (age, follower counts, activity), overall engagement rate, comment diversity, and timing patterns before making a purchasing decision." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Short single-word comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Brief endorsement/keyword or low-effort spam — the commenter wrote 'Rückenfit' (German: 'back-fit'), which could be a concise positive reaction, a shorthand description of the post/product, or a bot/spam keyword. Ambiguous without context." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment ('Rückenfit') was provided, so conclusions are necessarily tentative. The comment is a single German word that can be read as a succinct endorsement (user saying the post/product relates to back fitness), a descriptive tag, or low-effort/bot spam. Because it's one short token with no emojis, no tagging, and no clear dialog, its authenticity is unclear. I rate fakeness as moderate (50) with low confidence (35) due to extremely limited data. For advertising-feasibility I give a cautious-to-moderate score (45) with low confidence (30): this single comment neither strongly supports nor invalidates reach or genuine engagement. Recommendation: gather more comments (sample 50–200), inspect commenters' profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history, profile pictures), check comment timing and repetition patterns, look for diverse, substantive comments and like-to-comment ratios. If many comments match this short-keyword pattern, treat as likely low-quality/fake engagement and de-risk accordingly before ad spend." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word topical comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "signal topical interest or relevance (mentions 'Rückenfit' = 'back fit' — could be a brief endorsement, keyword to show alignment with fitness/health content, or a minimal engagement like a tag)." } ], "interpretation": "The dataset is extremely small (one short, single-word comment), so any authenticity judgement is tentative. 'Rückenfit' is likely intended to indicate topic relevance (back fitness) but could come from either a real follower leaving a short affirmation or from low-effort/bot accounts that post single keywords. Given its brevity and lack of personalization, there is a moderate suspicion of inorganic or low-effort engagement, but evidence is weak. For an advertising purchase decision, this single comment is insufficient: evaluate comment volume and variety, commenter profile quality (real accounts, bios, activity), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and past campaign performance before deciding. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles for follower counts and activity, check timestamps for bursts, and compare to expected engagement benchmarks for the influencer's niche." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word topical comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Expresses topical interest/association (references 'Rückenfit' = back fitness). Likely a brief positive/affirming reaction or keyword-like tag to the post's theme; may aim to boost engagement with a relevant term." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Rückenfit' (German for 'back fit' or 'fit back'). This is a very small sample and ambiguous in intent. It reads as a topical, single-word reaction rather than an obviously generic compliment, emoji spam, or repeated promotional line — so it leans toward genuine user engagement. However, a single short word could also be posted by a bot or by a user attempting simple keyword-based engagement; there is no contextual signal (account info, timing, repetition, likes, replies) to be certain. Given the paucity of data, the fakeness assessment is low-to-moderate suspicion but with low confidence. For advertising-buying decisions this single comment is insufficient evidence of healthy, authentic engagement: you should analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter accounts (age, follower counts, follower/following ratio, content quality), comment timestamps, like counts, and overall engagement rate before judging influencer suitability." }

Text: Rückenwirbel

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "ambiguous single-word comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Unclear — could be a topical tag/keyword (e.g., referencing 'spinal vertebra' if post is about back/health), a brief reaction, or a low-effort spam/bot message. Without context (post content, commenter profile) purpose cannot be determined reliably." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short, language-specific comment ('Rückenwirbel' — German for 'spinal vertebra') is available. This single data point is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. The comment is low-effort and ambiguous: if the post is about spine/medical topics it may be relevant and organic; if not, it may be noise or automated. Given the ambiguity and lack of volume, I assess moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness score 35) but with low confidence. For advertising decisions, these comments provide weak evidence of an engaged, relevant audience. Recommend collecting more data (number of comments, commenter profiles and behavior, comment timestamps, like-to-comment ratios, recurring commenters, deeper comment content) before proceeding with ad spend. If quick action is required, prefer a small test campaign and monitor real engagement metrics rather than relying on this comment sample." }

Text: 👍👍👍👍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 45, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short positive acknowledgement — expresses approval/likes without substantive engagement; primarily serves to boost visible engagement metrics rather than convey meaningful interest or intent to purchase." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment is a short repeated thumbs-up emoji (👍👍👍👍). Emoji-only responses are low-effort engagement: they can be genuine (a follower quickly showing approval) but are also a common pattern in bot/spam or paid-engagement behavior because they inflate comment counts while providing no contextual signal. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient evidence to confidently classify the audience as authentic. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji-only comments are ambiguous — somewhat suspicious but not definitive. For an advertising decision, this isolated data point is weak: it does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, conversational engagement, or purchase intent. Recommended next steps before buying ads: review a larger and time-stamped sample of comments, check commenter account quality (follower counts, bios, posting history), comment diversity (questions, long-form replies), like-to-comment ratios, and whether comments are from accounts matching the influencer’s target demographics." }

Text: Rücken fit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 25, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 55, "comment_types": [ { "type": "short positive engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "brief compliment/positive feedback likely referring to fitness (engagement to support the post)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment 'Rücken fit' (German: 'back fit') appears to be a short, context-specific positive remark rather than a clear bot/spam message. It lacks typical automated/bot signals (no links, no repeated templated text, no emoji farms). However, its brevity and lack of user context make its intent somewhat ambiguous — it could be a genuine follower compliment about the influencer's back/fitness or a terse, low-effort engagement. Because only one comment is provided, statistical judgments are weak: the low fakeness score reflects the absence of strong bot indicators, but confidence is moderate due to insufficient data. Overall suitability for advertising is low-moderate (overall_score 30) because a single short comment does not demonstrate consistent, authentic audience engagement. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, comment timing patterns, and cross-post engagement before making an advertising buy decision." }

Text: Rückenfit

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 30, "fakeness_confidence": 60, "overall_score": 25, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "single-word / keyword comment", "count": 1, "purpose": "Low-effort engagement: either a brief topical praise/keyword (e.g., 'Rückenfit' = 'back fit'), a spammy tag, or a shorthand endorsement. Intended to increase visible comment count but provides little conversational value or verification of genuine interest." } ], "interpretation": "Only one comment ('Rückenfit') was provided. This is a single-word, low-effort comment and is ambiguous: it could be an authentic short reaction (praising the content or referencing a product/program), or a generic/bot/spam entry that inflates engagement without real value. With this single data point you cannot reliably judge comment authenticity or audience quality. Fakeness risk is moderate because short one-word comments are commonly used by bots and engagement farms, but the comment's language specificity (German word) slightly reduces the probability of automated nonsense. Overall suitability for advertising cannot be judged positively from this alone — the visible comment interaction is minimal and shallow. Recommended next steps before purchase: obtain the full recent comment set across multiple posts, sample commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history, profile photos), comment timing patterns, repeat phrases across comments, like-to-comment ratios, and viewer metrics (story views, reach). Use those signals to re-evaluate; if many comments are similarly short/repetitive or commenters are low-quality accounts, treat the audience as low-value for ad spend." }

Text: 👌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 50, "fakeness_confidence": 30, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction / low-effort engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive acknowledgement or approval. Raises visible engagement but gives no substantive endorsement or information about product affinity; can be posted by real users or automated/bot accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment — the '👌' emoji — was provided. This is a low-information signal: it indicates a positive reaction but contains no content to assess genuine interest, purchase intent, or audience relevance. Emoji-only comments are common for organic followers but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement farms because they are low-effort. With just this one comment it is impossible to confidently determine authenticity; therefore the fakeness score is set at a neutral-moderate level (50) with low confidence (30). For advertising purchase feasibility this comment is a weak positive for surface-level engagement but provides little persuasive social proof; overall suitability for ad spend is therefore low-to-moderate (35) with moderate confidence (40). Recommended next steps before buying: analyze a larger sample of comments for diversity and specificity, check commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history, bios), examine comment timing patterns, compare likes-to-comments ratio, and look for repeated/emojified comments across posts." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥👏😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 65, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval and boost visible engagement. Low information content — can be genuine fan reaction, an engagement-pod reply, or an automated/bot comment." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists solely of repeated emojis (🔥🔥🔥🔥👏😍). Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous: they do signal positive sentiment but provide almost no topical or purchase-intent information. Because they are short, generic and highly repeatable, they carry a moderate risk of being inauthentic (engagement pods or bot activity) — hence the fakeness score of 65 with moderate confidence. For advertising-feasibility, this single data point is weak: it shows surface-level positivity but gives no evidence of engaged, conversion-ready followers. Overall suitability for an ad buy is low-to-moderate (score 35) based on this comment alone. Recommended next steps before purchase: obtain a larger sample of recent comments (50–200), inspect commenter profiles for real accounts (profile photos, follower counts, posting history), check recurrence of identical comments across posts, analyze comment timestamps and velocity, compare likes/views/comments ratios, and request account analytics (reach, impressions, audience demographics, saves/shares, click-throughs). Those additional checks will raise confidence and allow a more definitive recommendation." }

Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 25, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji_reaction", "count": 1, "purpose": "Short positive endorsement / enthusiasm (social proof). Increases visible engagement and signals approval; could be a genuine fan reaction or part of low-effort engagement from bots/engagement pods." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: five fire emojis (🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥). This is a generic positive reaction that provides minimal information about commenter intent, authenticity, or meaningful engagement. Strengths: it signals positive sentiment and contributes to visible engagement. Weaknesses: it's non-specific, could be posted by a real fan, a low-effort follower, an engagement pod member, or an automated account; alone it does not demonstrate purchase intent, product interest, or audience quality. Given the extremely limited data (one comment, no commenter profile, timing, or patterns), the fakeness assessment is tentative and low-confidence. Recommendation: before deciding on ad spend, analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts, profile photos, posting history), check comment timing patterns and repetition across posts, and calculate overall engagement rate and comment diversity. With only this comment, treat the evidence as weak — neither a clear red flag nor a strong positive signal for advertising feasibility." }

Text: @erikguenter

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 70, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 50, "comment_types": [ { "type": "mention/tag only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging another account (to notify a friend/colleague) or low-effort engagement (comment pod/bot) to increase reach" } ], "interpretation": "There is only a single comment and it consists solely of a username mention (@erikguenter). Mention-only comments typically serve to notify or draw another user to the post, but they are also frequently produced by engagement pods or bots and provide no qualitative endorsement. Given the lone, low-effort nature of this comment the likelihood of inauthentic engagement is elevated (fakeness score 70) but the confidence is limited because the sample size is one. For advertising decisions this evidence is weakly negative: comment quality and authenticity are poor signals here, so I would not rely on this post alone to judge the influencer's audience engagement. Recommended next steps: review comment content and patterns across multiple recent posts, check diversity and authenticity of commenters, timing of comments, and follower-to-engagement ratios before purchasing advertising." }

Text: @guderthomas

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 35, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "user_mention/tag", "count": 1, "purpose": "Tagging another Instagram user to draw their attention to the post (referral/notification). Low-effort engagement rather than substantive feedback." } ], "interpretation": "The only visible comment is a single user mention (@guderthomas). This is a low-information data point: user tags are frequently used organically to show a friend or draw attention, but they are also commonly produced by engagement pods or scripted/bot behavior. Because there is no accompanying text, emoji, question, or conversation thread, this looks like low-effort engagement rather than genuine audience endorsement. With a single mention it is impossible to reliably determine audience authenticity; the comment neither confirms nor strongly supports genuine interest in the creator's content. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this should be treated as weak evidence. Recommended next steps before purchasing ads: examine a larger sample of comments for patterns (repeated tags, copy-paste text, timing spikes), analyze commenter accounts (follower counts, activity, profile completeness), check overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count) and audience demographics. If many comments are similar tags or come from suspicious accounts, fakeness risk rises and ad investment should be reduced or avoided." }

Text: 👏wertvoll!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 15, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/complimentary", "count": 1, "purpose": "short praise/endorsement (expresses appreciation; social proof/engagement)" } ], "interpretation": "The single comment '👏wertvoll!' (clapping emoji + 'valuable' in German) is a concise positive reaction that likely represents a genuine, lightweight endorsement. It lacks common spam/bot markers (no links, no repeated promotional phrasing, natural language), but is too brief and solitary to be strong evidence of authentic, high-quality engagement. Fakeness risk for this specific comment is low, but confidence is limited because there is only one data point. For an advertising purchase decision you need a broader analysis: number and diversity of comments, commenter account quality (followers, activity, language match), timing patterns, overall engagement rate, and comment sentiment distribution. Based on this single comment, do not rely on the post as proof of a responsive target audience; additional data collection is required before approving ad spend." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji reaction (generic praise)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express positive sentiment/support with minimal effort; increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback or conversation." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of four heart/eye emojis. This is a low-information, high-signal cosmetic engagement: it indicates positive sentiment but not meaningful interest or intent to purchase. Such short emoji-only comments are common from both genuine followers and automated/bot accounts, so the probability of inauthenticity is elevated but uncertain — hence a moderate fakeness score with low confidence. For advertising feasibility this single example is insufficient evidence of a strong, engaged community. If most comments on the influencer's posts are similarly terse (emojis, single words, or repeated generic praise), that suggests low-quality engagement and a weaker case for buying ads. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for diversity (questions, recommendations, replies), check commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, activity), compare comment-to-follower and like-to-comment ratios, and look for patterns of repeated phrases/emojis or suspicious timing that indicate bot activity." }

Text: ❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 30, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji / low-effort", "count": 1, "purpose": "Simple positive reaction (heart) — signals appreciation or support and helps algorithmic visibility; can be posted by genuine followers, engagement pods, or automated/bought accounts." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single low-effort comment (a heart emoji) is available. That type of comment provides very little signal about audience quality or real interest in products/services. Emoji-only comments are common both from genuine quick-reacting followers and from bots or paid engagement, so there is a substantial chance of inauthenticity but the certainty is low given the minimal data. For advertising decisions, this sample is insufficient: recommend checking the full comments set and commenter profiles (account age, follower/following ratio, posting activity), the ratio of substantive comments to low-effort ones, timing patterns across posts, overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), and whether the same short comments repeat across many posts. Based on the lone emoji, treat comment-driven signals as weak and proceed with further verification before buying ads or partnerships." }

Text: This is i want,tksss!!!

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 50, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "expressed desire / purchase interest", "count": 1, "purpose": "User indicates they want the item and gives thanks — likely to signal interest or positive reaction (could be genuine intent or simple engagement)." } ], "interpretation": "Single short comment: \"This is i want,tksss!!!\" reads as an enthusiastic, low-effort expression of desire and thanks. Strengths for advertising: it signals user interest/positive reaction rather than neutral or negative response. Weaknesses/risks: non‑standard grammar and compressed 'tksss' (thanks) increase ambiguity — this could be a real non-native speaker/fan or a low-effort/fabricated engagement. With only one comment there is insufficient signal to conclude high-quality organic engagement. Recommended next checks before buying ads: inspect commenter profile (account age, follower count, posting history), search for the same phrasing across multiple posts (reused comments indicate bots or comment farms), and evaluate overall comments volume and diversity on multiple recent posts. Based on this single comment, I rate fakeness moderate (40/100) with moderate confidence and overall post suitability for advertising as borderline (50/100) with similar confidence." }

Text: 👏👏

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 35, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji engagement", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/encouragement; increases visible engagement but carries little information about genuine interest or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two clapping hands (\"👏👏\"). This is a low-signal, generic engagement type. Short emoji-only comments are common from both genuine followers (quick, casual praise) and from engagement pods/bots (auto-comments to boost metrics). Given the lack of context (no textual content, no tags/questions, only one comment) I assign a moderate probability of fakeness (60) but with low confidence (40) because the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions. For advertising feasibility I rate the comment section low (35) and with low confidence (35): a high proportion of generic emoji comments reduces trust in audience quality and intent, but a single comment is insufficient evidence. Recommended next steps before buying ads: request account-level metrics (impressions, reach, saves, story views), view a larger sample of recent comments for diversity/timing patterns, audit commenter profiles for authenticity, and check comment-to-like ratios and follower growth patterns." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 35, "overall_score": 45, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "emoji-only", "count": 1, "purpose": "Quick positive reaction / affiliation: increases visible engagement and signals approval but provides no substantive feedback or purchase intent." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: two heart emojis (❤️❤️). Emoji-only comments are common and serve to show appreciation or social support; they help surface the post in algorithms but carry very little information about audience intent or purchase interest. Such short reactions are also frequently produced by casual followers, engagement pods, or low-effort bots — there is not enough context to reliably determine authenticity. Given the lack of diverse, substantive comments (questions, testimonials, tagged friends, detailed opinions) this sample is a weak signal for influencer advertising suitability. Recommendation: gather more comments and metadata (number of unique commenters, commenter profiles, timing patterns, variety of comment content, like-to-comment ratio) before making an ad buy decision." }

Text: 😍😍😍😍😍

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 45, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 60, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only positive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express approval/admiration; low-effort engagement likely intended to signal positive reaction and increase visible engagement." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment (five heart/face emojis) is a low-effort, positive reaction. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement farms because they are easy and generic. With only this one comment available, there is insufficient evidence of meaningful audience interaction (no questions, no substantive praise, no conversation). For advertising decisions this is weak support: the visible comment quality does not demonstrate audience trust, advocacy, or topical relevance. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of comments (diversity, content depth), check commenter account authenticity (profile age, follower counts, posting behavior), measure engagement rate relative to follower count, and look for repeat/patterned comments that indicate inauthentic activity." }

Text: Uuuhhhhh das ist gut 👏👏😍😍😍 Dankeeeeee

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 10, "fakeness_confidence": 65, "overall_score": 40, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Enthusiastic positive / praise", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation and enthusiasm (positive sentiment / social affirmation), likely to increase perceived engagement and encouragement for the creator." } ], "interpretation": "The single comment ('Uuuhhhhh das ist gut 👏👏😍😍😍 Dankeeeeee') reads as a human, enthusiastic positive reaction in German: elongated words and multiple emojis suggest genuine enthusiasm rather than a templated bot reply. Fakeness risk is low but not zero — short, positive comments can be copied or purchased, but here stylistic quirks reduce that likelihood. However, this is only one data point; it is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or authenticity. For advertising feasibility, this comment is a small positive signal but inconclusive. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of recent comments (volume, diversity, language consistency, timing, account profiles of commenters) and cross-checking other metrics (engagement rate, follower growth, follower/commenter quality) before making a buy decision." }

Text: ❤️❤️

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 60, "fakeness_confidence": 40, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 35, "comment_types": [ { "type": "Emoji-only (heart)", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express a positive reaction / like. Low-effort engagement that provides little informational value; can be genuine affection from a follower, a quick reaction from a casual viewer, or a generic/bot/engagement-pod comment." } ], "interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two heart emojis (\"❤️❤️\"). This indicates positive sentiment but provides no substantive engagement (no question, no endorsement, no mention of product or experience). Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous: they may be genuine quick reactions, but they are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or purchased comments because they require minimal effort and are used to inflate visible engagement. Given the extremely small sample size, confidence in any judgment must be low. I scored fakeness moderately high (60) because emoji-only comments are a known low-quality engagement signal, but not certain enough to be definitive (confidence 40). For advertising purchase feasibility I scored the post low (30) because this single comment offers almost no evidence of authentic, purchase-intent audience interaction; confidence is low-to-moderate (35) because this judgment is based on only one comment. Recommended next steps before deciding on advertising: collect a larger sample of recent comments, check like-to-comment ratios, examine commenter profiles for authenticity (real photos, posting history, follower counts), watch for repeated short/generic comments, check timing patterns, and review overall follower quality and reach metrics." }

Text: Besten Dank 😌

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 40, "fakeness_confidence": 55, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 45, "comment_types": [ { "type": "thank-you / gratitude", "count": 1, "purpose": "Express appreciation/acknowledgement of the post; light positive engagement that signals politeness or receipt of a service (e.g., thanks for info, product, or response)." } ], "interpretation": "Only one short comment is available: \"Besten Dank 😌\" (German: \"Many thanks\"). This is a low-information, positive but generic remark. Such comments can be genuine (a follower thanking the creator after receiving value or a product) or superficial (bot/scripted or paid engagement) — there is nothing in the text to strongly indicate automation or coordinated inauthenticity, but its brevity and generic nature raise moderate suspicion. With only this single example, you cannot assess audience quality, comment diversity, or engagement authenticity. For advertising-buy decisions, this sample is insufficient: the comments do not demonstrate meaningful conversation, critical feedback, or high-value user interest. Recommendation: perform a fuller audit — examine a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (account age, followers, content), comment timestamps (burst patterns), likes on comments, reply threads, and overall engagement rate relative to follower count. Based solely on this comment, I would lean against using this as evidence of strong authentic engagement (overall score 30/100) but with moderate uncertainty; further data is required for a reliable ad-purchase decision." }

Text: Das war jetzt die Rettung!! 😮👏🔥

Analysis: { "fakeness_score": 20, "fakeness_confidence": 50, "overall_score": 30, "overall_confidence": 40, "comment_types": [ { "type": "positive/expressive", "count": 1, "purpose": "Show enthusiasm/relief and engage with the post (praise/approval)." } ], "interpretation": "Single comment: 'Das war jetzt die Rettung!! 😮👏🔥' (German). This reads as an immediate, enthusiastic reaction expressing that the content was helpful or 'a rescue' — i.e., positive sentiment and engagement. The language and emojis are natural for a follower reacting spontaneously. With only one comment sample it's impossible to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects that the phrase is not a generic promotional bot phrase and appears context-specific, but confidence is moderate-low because there is no metadata (commenter profile, timing, repetition, volume) to verify genuineness. Overall suitability for advertising is limited by the paucity of data: a single positive comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), comment timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios and look for repetitive/generic messages to better assess influencer reliability for ad purchase." }