https://www.instagram.com/p/DRFCnnECp10
-
Comment ER: 0.00%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 55,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Visual cues (tidy indoor setting with wood furniture and bookcase, well-styled hair and makeup, coordinated clothing) suggest a put‑together, middle-to-above-average lifestyle rather than clear low-income signals. No explicit premium-brand indicators (Aesop / Diptyque / visible luxury goods) are present, and no clear negative low-cost household markers appear. Evidence is limited to a single frame, so confidence is moderate-low."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 80,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Face is centered, eyes looking at the camera and framed like a selfie/talking-head shot — strong visual signal typical of on-camera personal addresses. However, there is no audio/transcript to confirm speaking rather than a posed photo, so confidence is reduced."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Makeup, styled hair, and overall grooming are prominent in the frame (well-done eye makeup, blush, lipstick, hair styling) — visual indicators consistent with beauty/self-care content. Single-frame evidence cannot confirm this is a consistent content theme, so confidence is moderate-low."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No visible logos, on-screen text, product packaging, or banners referencing low-cost retailers (Shein, AliExpress, Temu, discount supermarket chains) are present in the provided frame. Given the single-frame nature, absence is fairly confident but not absolute."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising or branded pillow products (including Sleep & Glow) are visible in the frame. Single-frame evidence supports a high-confidence absence."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content is visible in the provided frame; therefore there is no evidence of heterogeneous or inconsistent ad categories. Because this is absence rather than demonstrated thematic focus, confidence is moderate."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No advertising instances (speech, captions, product demos, visible packaging or sponsor text) are present in the frame, so authenticity of sales messaging cannot be assessed from available evidence."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 75,
"Interpretation": "Across the provided frame there are no signs of advertising (no sponsor tags, product placements, or promo text), so frequency within the analyzed content is assessed as none. Confidence is reasonably high for the single-frame sample."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "Structured argumentation (explanations, cause–effect, comparisons) cannot be observed in a solitary image; there are no captions or speech transcripts to evaluate reasoning. Score is low due to lack of evidence."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "No readable captions, demonstrations, or textual cues indicating transmission of rare or professional-level knowledge. Visual grooming suggests interest in beauty but provides no signal about the rarity or depth of information shared, so assessment remains low and uncertain."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Facial appearance and styling could place the subject in late 20s to mid‑30s, but age estimation from a single photograph is unreliable. There is insufficient evidence to strongly indicate over‑35; therefore the score leans below the threshold with low confidence."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No speech or textual content is available to evaluate clarity of thought, vocabulary, or reasoning. The subject appears composed and well-presented (a modest visual proxy for communicative care), but this is not sufficient to judge cognitive/communicative intelligence, so a neutral score with low confidence is used."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "There are no captions, quotes, or speaking cues revealing stable principles, value-driven messaging, or a clearly stated worldview. The curated personal appearance hints at values around self-presentation and grooming, but explicit evidence of 'own truth' transmission is lacking."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Facial expression shows a warm, slight smile and engaged eye contact — visual cues of positive energy and friendly affect. Without moving images or audio, enthusiasm cannot be fully confirmed, so confidence is moderate‑low."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 65,
"Confidence": 35,
"Interpretation": "The subject makes direct eye contact with the camera and has an engaging, polished appearance that conveys personal presence — indicators of visual charisma. Ability to inspire or emotionally engage an audience cannot be proven from a single still, so confidence is limited."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "No visible professional credentials, clinic environment, or technical demonstrations are present. Makeup and styling are well executed (enthusiast level), but there is no high‑confidence evidence of professional expert status in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, plastic surgery, or fashion. Score reflects likely non-expert or enthusiast with low-to-moderate confidence."
}
}
Comments (15)
Text: Estás preciosa 😍😍😍 esa niña preciosa le ha dado a su mami un glow up espectacular ✨
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 75,
"overall_score": 65,
"overall_confidence": 55,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Personal praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and affection toward the poster; reinforce relationship (follower or friend), increase visible engagement and positive sentiment."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is a personal, positive compliment referencing the poster and her child with affectionate emojis — language and specificity (\"esa niña... le ha dado a su mami un glow up\") suggest an organic follower or acquaintance rather than a generic bot/marketing message. Fakeness is therefore low. However the sample size is one comment, so conclusions about overall audience authenticity are limited. For advertising decisions this comment is a small positive signal for genuine engagement, but you should review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history), engagement rate over multiple posts, and timing patterns before committing to purchase. Recommended next steps: analyze 50–200 recent comments, check for repeated usernames, look at likes-to-follower ratio, and inspect commenter account authenticity."
}
Text: Estás muy guapa y feliz! Sólo hay que mirarte eso ojos para verlo. Siii, tienes pelazo 😂 pero volverás á tenerlo así 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment/Support",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and emotional support for the influencer's appearance and mood; increase visible engagement (likes/emoji) and social validation."
}
],
"interpretation": "This single comment is a positive, appearance-focused compliment with expressive emojis and small typos. Features that point toward authenticity: personalized phrasing (mentions eyes and hair), casual tone, typos and elongated letters ('Siii'), and mixed emojis (😂, 😍) consistent with a real follower. Features that would raise suspicion if repeated across many comments: highly generic praise, lack of specificity about the post content, and short structure typical of mass-produced comments. Given only one comment, the signal is weak — it suggests genuine follower engagement but is insufficient to conclude authenticity of the account's overall comment ecosystem. For advertising decisions, this is a mild positive indicator but not decisive. Recommended next steps: (1) inspect the commenter profile (age, follower/following ratio, posting history), (2) check for repeated similar comments across other posts and across multiple commenters, (3) measure comment-to-like ratio and average comment uniqueness, and (4) evaluate follower authenticity via sampling (recent followers, engagement timing). If many comments resemble this one and come from low-quality accounts, fakeness risk increases; if comments are varied and from credible accounts, the influencer is more viable for ads."
}
Text: Estás guapísima 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / generic praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment; serves to increase visible engagement but carries low informational value about the audience or influence."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Estás guapísima 😍\" — a short, generic compliment in Spanish with an emoji. This is positive sentiment but low-effort content: it could be a genuine follower, an acquaintance, or a low-effort engagement bot. Given the single data point, confidence is limited. For advertiser decision-making this comment alone is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts; inspect commenter profiles for real activity (profile photos, posting history, follower/following ratios); look for repetitive/generic comments across posts (bot pattern); compare comment diversity and depth vs. like counts; check timing patterns (many comments in short windows). Based on the single comment, the risk of fake engagement is moderate (fakeness score ~35) and the overall suitability for advertising is uncertain to slightly below average (~40)."
}
Text: Tenes un rostro con mucha luz amor muyyy linda vamos!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive affect toward the poster; likely aimed at relationship-building and boosting the post's perceived popularity."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Tenes un rostro con mucha luz amor muyyy linda vamos!') is a warm, colloquial compliment in Spanish. Linguistic cues — use of informal address ('amor'), elongated 'muyyy', and natural phrasing — lean toward a real human fan rather than a generic bot. However, the content is a generic flattering comment, which is a common pattern for both genuine followers and low-effort engagement bots. With only one comment available, there is insufficient evidence to judge audience authenticity or engagement quality reliably. For advertising decisions, collect a larger sample of recent comments and inspect commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, repetition of phrases across posts, timing clusters). Current assessment: minor probability of fakeness (20%), but low confidence in overall suitability for ad spend—recommend deeper audit before purchase."
}
Text: Muy guapa siempre❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 55,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/affection for the influencer (positive sentiment, social approval). Low informational value; usually meant to engage/support rather than convey specific interest in a product."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Muy guapa siempre❤️' is a short, generic compliment. Such comments are common among genuine followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort bot accounts or engagement farms because they are non-specific and universally applicable. Given only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions: sentiment is positive, which is useful for perceived popularity, but the comment provides no purchase intent, product interest, or detailed engagement. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment is a weak signal — it indicates some positive audience reaction but not deep or targeted engagement. Recommended next steps: inspect a larger sample of comments for variety and specificity, check commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, usernames), examine comment timing patterns and like counts on comments, and compare comment volume to follower count/average post reach before deciding to purchase advertising."
}
Text: Tienes carita de estar apuntito 😍👏
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Personal (colloquial)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Praise/affectional engagement — expresses a flattering observation using colloquial Spanish and emojis to convey positive emotion (likely aimed at the poster rather than promotional)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Tienes carita de estar apuntito 😍👏') reads as a personalized, colloquial compliment from a Spanish-speaking user. The use of a non-generic phrase ('apuntito') and emojis makes it more likely to be organic rather than a templated/bot comment. However, this is one data point — insufficient to draw robust conclusions about the overall authenticity of the account's comments. For advertising feasibility: this comment is a positive signal (engaged, emotive audience), but the sample size and lack of additional context (total comments, recurring commenters, follower quality, timing patterns) make the assessment tentative. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for repetition/generic phrases, check commenter profiles for follower counts and activity, compare likes-to-comments ratio, and look for clusters of similar comments or suspicious account naming patterns before making a buy decision."
}
Text: Que bien te sienta el embarazo!!!😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Supportive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive reinforcement about the influencer's pregnancy; social engagement to show support and boost perceived likeability."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment, \"Que bien te sienta el embarazo!!!😍😍\", is a positive, personalized compliment referencing pregnancy and using affectionate emojis. That specificity makes it more likely genuine than a generic bot phrase, but it could still be part of engagement pods or copy-paste compliments used to boost engagement. With only one comment provided, there is insufficient evidence to judge the overall comment authenticity or the influencer's audience quality. For advertising decisions, this single supportive comment is a small positive signal (shows warm follower reaction) but is far from enough: evaluate volume and diversity of comments, commenter account quality (age, activity, follower counts), timing patterns, repeated phrases across posts, and like-to-comment ratios before making a purchase decision."
}
Text: Guapísima!!! ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short compliment / praise (emoji)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive reinforcement; low-effort engagement to signal approval or boost perceived popularity."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Guapísima!!! ❤️\" is a short, positive compliment in Spanish with an emoji. Such comments are common among genuine followers but are also frequently used by bots, purchased accounts, or comment pods because they are generic and low-effort. Given only one comment sample, there is insufficient evidence to reliably judge authenticity or overall audience quality. The low fakeness score (20) reflects that this specific message is plausibly genuine, but the confidence is moderate–low because short compliments are ambiguous signals.\n\nFor advertising-feasibility: comments on this post alone provide weak support. A single generic compliment does not demonstrate meaningful, purchase-intent engagement or audience trust. Before deciding to buy advertising or partner with this influencer, review a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts and perform these checks: examine commenter profiles (follower counts, post frequency, avatars, bios), look for repeated identical comments across posts, check timestamp clustering, compute comment-to-like ratio, and assess comment depth (questions, story references, tagging). If most comments are similarly short/generic, treat engagement as low-quality and discount the influencer's ad value; if you find many substantive, diverse, and identifiable commenters, the influencer is more likely to deliver real reach and influence."
}
Text: Estas espectacular 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive engagement (support the influencer's image, build social proof)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment: \"Estas espectacular 😍\" (Spanish compliment with heart-eyes emoji). This is a short, generic positive remark typical of genuine followers but also the kind of message posted by engagement bots or comment pods. Given only one comment to analyze, the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions. The low fakeness score reflects that the message content appears natural and not overtly spammy, but confidence is moderate because a single, generic compliment is ambiguous. For advertising feasibility: this single comment provides weak evidence of authentic, engaged audience. Recommend further checks before purchase: examine volume and variety of comments, commenter account quality (real-looking profiles, follower counts, posting history), likes-to-follower ratio, timing patterns (many comments posted in short bursts), and recurrence of identical/generic comments across posts. If broader comment set shows diverse, specific engagement from real accounts, influencer suitability would increase; if many similar generic compliments appear, risk of inauthentic engagement is high."
}
Text: Estás preciosa ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / positive sentiment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/affection for the creator (engagement/vanity). Could be genuine follower praise or a short generic comment intended to boost visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: 'Estás preciosa ❤️' (You're beautiful). This is a common, positive, low-effort comment that provides very limited signal about audience quality. Possibilities: (a) genuine follower expressing admiration, (b) casual/anonymous engagement from an occasional viewer, or (c) templated/generic comment from a bot or engagement farm. Given the brevity and generic nature, there is a moderate risk of it being non-organic, but confidence is low because the sample size is one. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single comment is insufficient: recommend auditing a larger set of comments, checking the commenter(s) account age, follower ratio, comment diversity, engagement rate relative to follower count, and repetition of similar comments across posts. If multiple comments are similarly short/generic and come from low-quality accounts, fakeness risk increases and advertising value decreases. Current overall assessment is neutral (score ~50) with low confidence; more data needed before committing to an ad buy."
}
Text: Que guapa estás Irene 😍❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Fan praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment toward the influencer (social support/engagement)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment (“Que guapa estás Irene 😍❤️”) is a short, positive compliment using the influencer’s name and emojis. These features point toward a genuine follower or acquaintance expressing praise, which is beneficial for perceived authenticity. However, the phrasing is also generic and common in bot-driven or low-effort engagement, so some risk of inauthenticity remains. With only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For ad-buy decisions, this isolated positive comment is mildly favorable but insufficient evidence — recommend reviewing comment volume, timing, commenter profiles (followers, activity, language consistency) and patterns across multiple posts before committing to advertising spend."
}
Text: Estás preciosa!!!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise (short, generic)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive affirmation of the influencer's appearance; social approval and simple engagement to show support or admiration."
}
],
"interpretation": "Есть только один комментарий — «Estás preciosa!!!» (испан. «Ты прекрасна!!!»). По содержанию это короткая похвала без упоминания продукта или бренда. Возможные значения: искренняя поддержка от подписчика/фаната или очень типичное, низкоинвестиционное сообщение (которое иногда генерируют боты/комментаторы для создания видимости активности). Учитывая единичность и общность фразы, вероятность того, что это полностью поддельный комментарий невысока, но нельзя исключать шаблонный/низкокачественный характер. Для решения о покупке рекламы такие комментарии дают слабую опору — они демонстрируют минимум позитивного взаимодействия, но не подтверждают заинтересованную, релевантную аудиторию или конверсию. Рекомендации: запросить полную выборку комментариев и лайков под постом, средний ER (engagement rate), демографию подписчиков и проверку на боты/массовые фолловеры. На текущих данных риск покупки высок из‑за недостатка доказательств эффективности."
}
Text: Preciosa !!!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 65,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express positive sentiment / signal approval and generate engagement. Short, non-specific praise that can come from genuine followers or low-effort/bot accounts."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Preciosa !!!' is a short, generic positive compliment. Such comments are common both from real followers and from low-effort engagement (bots or comment farms). There is no personalization, no question, no emoji variety, and no tagging to indicate a strong genuine interaction. With only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. I rate the comment as more likely low-effort/fake than clearly authentic (fakeness_score 65) but the confidence is low because one short compliment is ambiguous. For advertising feasibility: this single comment does not provide strong evidence of an engaged, high-quality audience — overall_score 40 with low confidence. I recommend examining more signals before a buy decision: volume and diversity of comments, commenter account quality (profiles, activity, follower counts), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and recurring comment texts across posts to identify templates/bot behavior."
}
Text: ❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Quick positive reaction / low-effort engagement — signals liking or approval but provides no substantive feedback; could be genuine follower enthusiasm or generic/bot engagement"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment consisting of two heart emojis was provided. Emoji-only comments are low-information: they indicate positive sentiment but do not demonstrate meaningful interest, intent to purchase, or audience quality. Such comments are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots, engagement pods, or purchased comment packages. Given the single data point, the fakeness assessment is highly uncertain (fakeness_score=60 reflects a slight leaning toward inauthenticity because emoji comments are easy to fabricate, but confidence is low). For advertising decisions this comment alone is insufficient evidence of a healthy, engaged audience. Recommended next steps: request a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, compare comment diversity and depth, check like-to-comment ratios, examine timing and repetitiveness of similar comments, audit follower authenticity, and ask the influencer for audience demographics/insights before committing to a purchase."
}
Text: Mi niña estás a puntito
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Supportive / personal",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Emotional support/encouragement (familiar tone), likely from a friend or engaged follower rather than promotional or bot-driven engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Mi niña estás a puntito\" reads as informal and familiar Spanish, using a diminutive and natural phrasing that suggests a real person (friend or engaged follower) offering encouragement. It contains no promotional language, links, hashtags, or repeated template-like elements common in fake or bot comments. However, this is only one data point: the sample size is too small to draw confident conclusions about the overall authenticity of the account's audience or the health of its comment section. For advertising purchase decisions, this single genuine-seeming comment is a mild positive signal but insufficient on its own. Recommended next steps: audit a larger set of recent comments (look for repetition, generic praise, language patterns), check commenter profiles for real-looking accounts (photos, posting history, follower/following ratios), measure comment-to-like ratio and comment diversity, and check timing patterns to detect inorganic bursts. Based on the current limited evidence I rate comment fakeness low (15/100) but give only moderate confidence; overall suitability for ads is currently low–moderate (35/100) pending deeper analysis."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DQRS7MTCkH_
-
Comment ER: 0.00%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 65,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Moderately above-average. Visible premium skincare bottles (Elemis) on the sink, tidy/design-forward public restroom (likely spa/gym), well-groomed appearance, jewellery and an up-to-date phone case suggest mid-to-premium lifestyle. No clear luxury home cues (no La Mer/Aesop at home, no luxury vehicle/travel evidence), so not scored as full luxury."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Low likelihood. The frame is a mirror selfie: the subject looks at the camera and faces it, but there is no evidence of speaking to camera (no microphone, no mouth movement or subtitles). Based strictly on this frame, talking-head (speaking directly on camera) cannot be confirmed."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Fairly aligned with beauty/self-care. Readable Elemis skincare bottles (a recognized premium skincare brand) and polished personal grooming (hair, makeup, earrings) are visible, which are relevant signals. Single-frame evidence only — not proof of sustained thematic content — so confidence is moderate."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No low-cost retailer advertising detected. Readable brand present (Elemis), and there are no visible logos or mentions of AliExpress, Shein, Temu, Aldi, Lidl, or similar low-cost retailers in the frame."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising present in the visible frame. No pillows or pillow-branded signage are visible; therefore constraint is satisfied."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 85,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "If any advertising/product placement is present, it is consistent: visible skincare products (Elemis) cluster around a beauty/self-care theme. No heterogeneous, unrelated product categories are visible in the frame."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Weak evidence for authentic, trust-based advertising. Products (Elemis) are visible on the sink but there is no on-screen text, demonstration, or contextual usage info in the frame. The presence of product in a realistic bathroom setting is mildly suggestive of lifestyle integration, but there is no clear personal testimonial or instruction visible."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Ambiguous. A branded product is visible in this frame (Elemis), which could indicate product placement or routine use, but there is no explicit ad overlay, caption, or multiple ad types shown. Based strictly on the single-frame evidence, advertising appears at least once but frequency across content cannot be confirmed."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "No evidence. A single selfie frame contains no spoken or written argumentation, stepwise explanation, or comparative reasoning. Cannot infer structured thinking from this visual alone."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 15,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "No substantive evidence of specialized or rare knowledge. Presence of premium skincare suggests interest in beauty, but there is no visible instructional content, ingredient discussion, or advanced tips in the frame."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Visual impression suggests the subject is likely under 35. Facial features and styling appear consistent with a person in their late 20s–early 30s, but single-image age estimation is uncertain, so confidence is low–moderate."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No reliable evidence either way. The frame shows a composed, well-presented individual which does not provide measurable signals of cognitive ability, reasoning or communicative intelligence. Neutral score with low confidence due to lack of speech or text evidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 25,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "Limited/no evidence of articulated personal values. Visual cues (self-care products, grooming) hint at valuing personal care, but there are no captions, statements, or recurring content patterns in this single frame to indicate a consistent value-driven identity or 'own truth' transmission."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Moderately positive energy visible. The subject is smiling subtly and posing confidently in the mirror, which signals friendly/positive affect. This is a weak proxy and only a single still frame, so confidence is moderate-to-low."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Some charisma suggested by confident pose, direct eye contact with camera, and polished appearance. Still, a single selfie offers limited evidence of the ability to inspire or engage emotionally across audiences."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "No clear evidence of professional expert status in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, plastic surgery, or fashion. Presence of premium skincare bottles suggests interest or enthusiast-level familiarity, but there are no credentials, clinical environment, professional tools, or instructional content visible to support expert classification."
}
}
Comments (13)
Text: Let’s go ❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "supportive / enthusiastic",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express enthusiasm/encouragement and provide social proof (short positive engagement, emoticons)"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single, short comment is available: \"Let’s go ❤️❤️❤️\". This is a generic positive engagement comment that commonly appears from genuine followers, engagement-pod participants, or low-effort bot accounts. Because there is no additional context (commenter profile, timing, frequency, likes on the comment, distribution of similar comments), the assessment of fakeness is uncertain — leaning toward likely genuine but with a meaningful chance of being low-effort or coordinated. For advertising feasibility the evidence is weak: one generic supportive comment does not demonstrate meaningful or authentic audience engagement, so I rate overall suitability for ad purchase as low–moderate. Recommended next steps: provide a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, timestamps, post likes/views, and follower demographics to increase confidence."
}
Text: No hay mas que verte.Estas estupenda!!😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and social support; positive engagement that provides social proof but no product/brand mention or call-to-action."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment in Spanish: 'No hay mas que verte. Estás estupenda!!😍😍' — a short, generic positive compliment with emojis. Strengths: genuine-seeming personal language, emotive emojis, and no obvious spammy templates. Weaknesses/risks: very generic wording and short length, which can also appear in low-effort bot or paid-comment behavior; sample size is one comment so signal is extremely limited. For advertising decisions this comment alone is weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience — it shows positive sentiment but not conversational depth, diversity of commenters, brand interest, or call-to-action. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter profiles (followers, posting history), measure comment diversity and timing, and compute overall engagement rate before making a buy decision."
}
Text: Y estás preciosa 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/positive engagement (short praise with emojis)"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Y estás preciosa 😍😍😍') is a short, positive compliment using heart‑eyes emojis. This pattern is common among genuine followers and also among low-effort engagement (bot or paid) — its generic language and emoji use slightly increase ambiguity but do not strongly indicate fakery by themselves. With only one comment available, overall evidence is insufficient to determine authenticity or the influencer's suitability for advertising. Suggested next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments for repetition, check commenter profiles for realism (follower counts, posting history), compare comment volume to likes and follower totals, and inspect timing/patterns of comments to better assess audience quality before purchase. Based on this single comment, I estimate low fakeness (20/100) but assign moderate uncertainty; overall advertising-feasibility score is cautious/neutral (40/100) pending deeper analysis."
}
Text: Que guapa ❤️y que poquito queda 👏😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and encouragement (social validation); increases visible engagement and signals follower appreciation."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment: \"Que guapa ❤️y que poquito queda 👏😍\". Content is a short, positive compliment in Spanish with multiple emojis — likely from a follower or casual viewer. Signals for authenticity: natural language, contextually coherent (not just emoji or single-word generic spam), multiple emojis that match tone. Signals for potential inauthenticity: the phrase is relatively generic and commonly used by both real users and comment-generating bots/engagement pods. With only one data point it is not possible to judge overall comment quality or authenticity for the influencer's account. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single comment is weak evidence; you should analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, repetition of similar comments, and overall engagement rate. Recommended next steps: collect at least 100 recent comments across posts, check for repeated phrases/accounts, inspect commenter bios and follower/following ratios, and compute engagement (likes/comments) vs follower count to improve confidence."
}
Text: El ombliguillo asomando 😊me encanta 😂😂
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Flirtatious (image-specific) with emojis",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive reaction to the influencer's appearance (references 'ombliguillo' — a specific visual detail). Functions to praise, show affection/attraction, and provide lightweight engagement that reinforces the influencer's image."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is a short, image-specific compliment ('El ombliguillo asomando' = 'the little belly button peeking out') with playful emojis and laughter. That specificity (referencing a visible detail) and the informal tone make it more likely organic than a generic or bot-like message. However, with only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising feasibility: this comment is positive and indicates some follower affinity, but it does not demonstrate meaningful audience depth, purchase intent, or comment diversity. Recommend analyzing a larger set of recent comments, commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, activity patterns), like-to-comment ratios, and timing patterns before making an ad-buy decision."
}
Text: Q Guapísima stas!!!!! 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Fan praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration for the creator's appearance; show support and provide positive social proof to others."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single short comment reads as an informal, affectionate compliment (\"Qué guapísima estás\") with multiple exclamation marks and a heart-eyes emoji. This pattern is common among genuine followers, friends, or engaged fans. It is not strongly indicative of bot-generated or paid engagement (no generic phrases like \"nice post\" repeated across accounts, no links, no obvious spam). However, with only one comment as data, confidence is limited: the comment could still be from a friend or a small circle of supportive accounts rather than reflecting broad, authentic audience engagement. For advertising feasibility this single positive comment is mildly encouraging but insufficient: you should review overall engagement rate (likes vs. followers), diversity and authenticity of many commenters (profile age, follower counts, comment variety), comment timestamps (clustering), and repetition patterns before deciding. Recommended next checks: sample 50–100 recent comments, inspect commenter profiles for bots/farms, and compare engagement to account follower size."
}
Text: Estás preciosa, amiga !
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and social support; signals positive sentiment and personal connection (friend/follower endorsement)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"Estás preciosa, amiga !\" — a short, positive, conversational compliment in Spanish addressing the poster as a friend. This kind of message is typical of genuine follower or friend engagement; however, it is also a generic phrase that could be used by casual followers or low-effort accounts. Given the extremely small sample (one comment) the assessment is necessarily tentative. The low fakeness score (15) reflects that the comment appears more likely genuine than bot-like, but confidence is limited (35) because one generic compliment is weak evidence either way. For advertising feasibility the overall score is modest (40) with low confidence (30): a lone positive comment is not sufficient to conclude strong authentic engagement or meaningful audience influence. Recommended next steps before buying advertising: analyze a larger set of recent comments, check commenter account profiles for authenticity (profile photos, posting history, follower counts), measure engagement rate (likes and comments relative to follower count), look for repetitive or templated comments, and examine temporal patterns (sudden spikes)."
}
Text: Tan guapa tu!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 25,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and social support for the influencer; increases apparent engagement and social proof. Could be genuine follower interaction or low-effort fan comment."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Tan guapa tu!\" is a short, generic compliment (\"So pretty you\"). On its own this looks like normal follower praise and is common on influencer posts; there are no strong signs of automation (no repeated tokens, no links, no obvious bot markers), but it is also short and generic enough that it could come from a low-effort/fan account or a fake account. Confidence in any judgement is limited because there is only one comment to analyze. For advertising-feasibility decisions you should not rely on this alone: check commenter profiles (account age, follower count, posting history), overall comment volume and diversity, timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios across multiple posts to better detect fake engagement."
}
Text: 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji_reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Short, positive reaction (expresses liking/affection). Lightweight engagement that boosts visible activity but provides little evidence of genuine interest or purchase intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is available: two heart-eyes emojis (😍😍). This is a low-information, high-frequency comment type — common among genuine followers as a quick positive reaction, but also commonly generated by bots or low-effort purchased engagement. Given a single short emoji we cannot reliably distinguish organic from inorganic activity. Therefore the assessed fakeness risk is low-to-moderate (25/100) but with low confidence (30/100). For advertising feasibility this single comment gives almost no evidence of authentic, purchase-intent engagement; overall conservatively scored 40/100 (confidence 30/100). Recommended next steps before any ad spend: obtain the full comment set, check for repeated identical comments, audit commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), examine timing patterns, compare likes-to-comments and reach metrics, and look for conversation or questions indicating real interest."
}
Text: Que guapa😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 60,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment (short positive comment)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express praise/affection and increase visible engagement; typical follower reaction or casual viewer comment to show approval."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Que guapa😍') is a short, generic positive remark with an emoji. This pattern is common among genuine followers but is also easily produced by bots or purchased-engagement services, so the fakeness risk is present but not high. Given only one comment, signal is very limited: you cannot assess commenter authenticity, diversity of comments, timing patterns, or like-to-comment ratios. For advertising feasibility this comment alone suggests some positive audience response but is insufficient evidence of a healthy, authentic community. Recommended next steps before buying ads: inspect the commenter(s) profiles (age, follower/following ratio, post history), analyze full comment set for repetition/templated language, review engagement rate across multiple posts, check comment timestamps for unnatural bursts, and request the influencer's audience demographics and a media kit or third-party audit. Based on available information, moderate suitability for ads (score 60) but with low-to-moderate confidence; obtain broader comment and account data to raise confidence and refine the assessment."
}
Text: 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 50,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji-only positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/approval. Low informational value — typical low-effort engagement that could be from a genuine follower or from automated/paid engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"😍😍\". This is an emoji-only, positive reaction with no contextual content. Such comments are common among real followers (quick praise) but are also frequently used by bots or fake engagement services because they require no typing and look superficially positive. With a single short emoji comment there is insufficient evidence to determine authenticity: risk of fake/low-value engagement is moderate (hence fakeness_score ~50). For advertising purchase decisions this comment provides little assurance of a real, engaged audience — comment quality, diversity, conversational replies, and informative feedback are absent. Overall suitability for advertising based on this comment alone is low (overall_score 30) and confidence in that verdict is limited.\n\nRecommendations: obtain a larger sample of recent comments (≥200), check for repetition of identical emojis/phrases, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), compare likes/views ratio to follower count, look for meaningful comments (questions, product references, tagged friends), and request the influencer's audience demographics and past campaign metrics before deciding to buy advertising."
}
Text: A puntito ya !!!❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "supportive/anticipatory",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express excitement/anticipation and emotional support (personal follower or friend reacting to a life event or imminent update)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short comment was provided: \"A puntito ya !!!❤️\". Linguistically and stylistically it reads as a genuine, personal reaction (informal phrasing, punctuation, emoji) expressing anticipation or excitement. With a single data point we cannot assess broader patterns (repetitive phrasing, timing, account characteristics) that indicate inorganic activity. Given that, the comment looks low-risk for being fake, but confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility, this single comment neither confirms nor disproves healthy authentic engagement: it suggests at least some real follower interaction but is insufficient to judge volume, diversity of commenters, or whether engagement is organic. Recommend collecting a larger sample of comments, commenter account metadata (age, follower counts, posting history), comment timestamps, and engagement rate metrics before making an ad-buy decision."
}
Text: Ains como se nota donde tiene ese culete🥰
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 70,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Flirtatious / sexual compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express personal/sexual admiration of the influencer's body; engage the poster and signal fandom/attraction."
}
],
"interpretation": "Один комментарий (испанский: «Ains como se nota donde tiene ese culete🥰») — явный флирт/комплимент в адрес внешности. Формулировка не выглядит шаблонной или явно ботоподобной (коллоквиальная, конкретная), поэтому оценивается как в высокой степени подлинный пользовательский отклик (низкий показатель фейковости). Однако это единичный пример: выборка слишком мала, чтобы делать надёжные выводы о качестве аудитории и реальной вовлечённости. Для рекламной покупки важно дополнительно проверить: объём и разнообразие комментариев, соотношение лайков/комментариев к подписчикам, наличие повторяющихся или однотипных сообщений (признаки ботов), демографию аудитории и соответствие бренду. Замечание по рискам: доминирующие сексуализированные комментарии могут снижать привлекательность для семейных или консервативных брендов. Рекомендация — собрать большую выборку комментариев и метрик перед решением о покупке."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DO_bk5FCnNn
-
Comment ER: 0.00%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Interior shows mid-to-upper middle visual cues: hardwood floor, large mirrored wardrobe, coordinated bedside tables and lamp, tidy minimalist décor and what appears to be skincare jars on the nightstand. No clear low-cost or cheaply cluttered items are visible, but there are also no explicit premium-brand cues (no visible Aesop/Diptyque/La Mer packaging), so evidence points to a comfortable, likely above-average lifestyle but not unequivocal luxury."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "This is a mirror selfie image — the blogger is visible and looking at a phone rather than directly into a recording camera, with no indication of on-camera speaking. There is no frame evidence of an active talking‑head video format."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Small signals toward self-care: visible jars/items on the bedside (likely skincare) and coordinated activewear, but no explicit multi-step routines, beauty devices, masks, or repeated product displays. The content appears personal (pregnancy) rather than clearly focused on beauty/self‑care as a stable theme."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No visible advertising, logos, or mentions of low-cost retailers (Shein/Temu/AliExpress/Lidl/Aldi) appear in the frames."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising or branded sleep-product promotion is visible in the image."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content is present in the provided frame set, so there is no evidence of inconsistent or heterogeneous ad categories."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No adverts or sponsored messaging are visible to evaluate authenticity; absence of ads implies no inauthentic promotional signals within these frames."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No advertising appears in the provided image frames."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "There is only a short caption overlay (humorous first-person line) and a single photographic frame; no evidence of reasoned multi-step explanations, comparisons, or structured argumentation."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 5,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No instructional content, technical explanation, or specialized knowledge is visible in the frames or overlay text; the image is personal and not educational."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Visual appearance suggests an adult who may be in their late 20s–30s; there is no definitive age cue. The evidence is ambiguous, so likelihood of being over 35 is low-to-moderate but uncertain."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Intelligence-related assessment cannot be reliably inferred from a single selfie and brief caption. Neutral mid score reflects absence of speech or written content demonstrating analytic ability; low confidence due to lack of data."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "The first-person caption and personal, candid pregnancy photo show some willingness to share personal life and self-deprecating humor ('Mi barriga siempre llega antes que yo'), implying a personal voice. However, there is no clear, consistent expression of stable principles or value-driven argumentation visible in the frames."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 70,
"Interpretation": "Body language (hands on hip, upright posture) and the laughing emoji in the overlay suggest a positive, light, and upbeat tone. The image reads as warm and accepting rather than negative or fatigued."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "The candid, confident pose and relatable caption convey approachability and modest charisma — appealing and likely relatable to followers — but there is no dynamic multimedia evidence (video delivery, vocal tone) to rate higher."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No visible credentials, professional environment, or technical demonstration related to cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, plastic surgery, or fashion expertise. Frames show a personal home setting only, so there is no evidence of expert status."
}
}
Comments (12)
Text: Estás guapísima 💗💗💗
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short compliment / positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and provide visible engagement (likes/comments). Commonly used to show support or boost post metrics; can be authentic from followers or generic from engagement pods/bought comments."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Estás guapísima 💗💗💗' is a brief, generic compliment with emojis. This kind of comment is consistent with authentic follower praise but is also one of the most common templates used in engagement pods and purchased comments, so it is not strong evidence either way. Given only one comment, the assessment of fakeness is uncertain (moderate likelihood of being inorganic but low confidence). For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single data point is insufficient: you need a larger sample of comments, diversity of comment types, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created/bot-like), timing patterns, like-to-follower ratio, and metrics such as saves/shares and reach. Recommendation: collect more comments (ideally dozens), examine commenter account health and engagement patterns before making an ad purchase decision."
}
Text: Uy qué poquito te queda! ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 25,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "supportive/personal engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Supportive/relational comment expressing closeness or excitement (likely about timing/remaining time); aims to engage the poster and show familiarity."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Uy qué poquito te queda! ❤️') reads as a natural, context-specific, Spanish-language reaction likely from a follower who knows the creator's situation (e.g., pregnancy, countdown, product running out, trip ending). It contains casual phrasing and an emoji, not the generic positive phrases or link/promo text common in fake/bot comments, so it appears authentic. However, with only one comment provided there is insufficient data to judge overall comment authenticity or community quality. For advertising feasibility: current evidence is weak — low sample size and low engagement make it risky to rely on this post alone. I recommend analyzing more comments, like counts, comment-to-follower ratio, diversity of commenters, timing patterns, and replies from the influencer before making a buying decision."
}
Text: Valeria crece feliz🥰🥰🥰 Estas preciosa 🤩
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 85,
"overall_score": 65,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Supportive/personal praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express affection and admiration toward the subject (personal/familiar tone), show follower support and raise visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Valeria crece feliz🥰🥰🥰 Estas preciosa 🤩' is a personalized, affectionate message in Spanish using the person's name and multiple emojis. It reads as genuine (likely a friend, family member, or engaged fan) rather than templated or bot-like: personal name usage, natural phrasing, and emotional emojis are low-risk signals for fakery. Given only one comment, this sample is very limited — you cannot infer overall audience authenticity or engagement quality from it alone. For advertising decisions, this comment is a mildly positive signal of authentic audience connection, but it's insufficient evidence by itself. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles for real follower signals (profile photos, posting history, follower/following ratios), check for repetitive/duplicated comments, compute engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), and review comment timing patterns. Based on this single comment the account shows a hint of genuine engagement, but obtain broader data before finalizing ad purchase."
}
Text: Que bella estás 💖✨
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment; provides social proof and engagement (short, emoji-rich)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment: \"Que bella estás 💖✨\" is a brief, generic complimentary message (Spanish) common on influencer posts. This type of comment can be genuine from a follower or a low-effort automated/generic engagement; there is nothing overtly suspicious but one comment alone is insufficient to judge authenticity. Fakeness assessed as low-to-moderate (25) with limited confidence because of minimal data. For advertising decisions, this comment is a mildly positive signal but not meaningful by itself — recommend further checks: commenter account activity (age, posts, follower/following ratio), frequency of similar comments across posts, comment-to-follower ratio, timing patterns, and overall comment diversity. Only after that can a higher-confidence recommendation on ad purchase be given."
}
Text: 💕Irenita que poquito te va quedando💕
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 75,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 55,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Personal / familiar supportive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Show affection/support to the poster (uses a diminutive name and heart emojis); likely from a friend or engaged follower."
},
{
"type": "Generic praise/short engagement",
"count": 0,
"purpose": "Short compliments or emojis without personal reference."
},
{
"type": "Spam / bot-like",
"count": 0,
"purpose": "Promotional links, irrelevant messages, repeated phrases typical of automated comments."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('💕Irenita que poquito te va quedando💕') reads as personal and organic: it uses a diminutive name ('Irenita'), colloquial Spanish and heart emojis, which strongly suggests a real follower or acquaintance rather than a templated bot reply. Fakeness is therefore low (about 10/100) but confidence is not maximal because the sample size is only one comment. For advertising feasibility the quality of this comment is positive (shows real connection), but the quantity is too small to judge overall community engagement or influence reliably. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of recent comments, overall engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), commenter profiles, and timing patterns before committing to ad spend."
}
Text: Para cuando te toca? 🥰
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 70,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Personal engagement / question",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express curiosity about a personal milestone (e.g., pregnancy, event) and prompt a reply from the influencer to drive engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Para cuando te toca? 🥰') reads as an organic, follower-driven question in Spanish asking when the influencer will 'have theirs' (likely referring to pregnancy or a personal event). It contains a personal tone and emoji which reduces likelihood of being an automated or generic spam comment. Fakeness risk is low but not zero (15) because a small number of bot accounts can post personalized-looking comments. Confidence in that fakeness rating is moderate-high (70) given the linguistic specificity. Overall assessment for advertising feasibility based on this lone comment is inconclusive (score 55) — the comment is a positive sign of real audience interest, but a single data point is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition or generic phrases, check commenter account(s) for profile completeness and follower counts, examine timing/patterns of comments, and compute engagement rate relative to follower count before making an ad purchase decision."
}
Text: Estás guapísima embarazada!!😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 55,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Praise/support (congratulating/complimenting the poster, social bonding; increases perceived likability)"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Estás guapísima embarazada!!😍😍\" is a positive, personalized compliment in Spanish referencing pregnancy. The wording and emoji use appear natural and context‑appropriate, so likelihood of this specific comment being fake is low (fakeness score 15). However, this is only one comment — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising feasibility: sentiment is favorable, but engagement volume is minimal here. Recommend further checks before purchasing ads: analyze a larger set of recent comments for repetition/generic templates, inspect commenter accounts (age, follower counts, posting history), compare comment-to-like and comment-to-follower ratios, and look for patterns of repeated phrases or many short generic compliments that often indicate inorganic engagement. Based on the single comment alone, this post shows positive sentiment but insufficient evidence of strong, authentic engagement to confidently support an ad purchase (overall score 45)."
}
Text: ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji-only / low-effort engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Simple positive reaction to the post (affirms like/approval). Boosts engagement count but provides no substantive feedback or endorsement; often used by genuine followers but also by bots/engagement groups."
}
],
"interpretation": "There is only a single comment: a heart emoji. This is a low-information piece of engagement — it signals a positive reaction but offers no context, testimonial value, or audience intent. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers but are also a primary pattern used by bots or purchased engagement; with only this data point I assign a moderate probability of being fake (45%) with limited confidence (40%). For advertising feasibility this comment alone is weak evidence of genuine audience interest or influence; overall assessment is low (30) with modest confidence (35). Recommendation: evaluate additional signals (like count, follower quality, comment diversity, timing patterns, and ratio of substantive comments) before making a buying decision."
}
Text: Yo cuando llovía no me mojaba los zapatos 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 75,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Personal anecdote / humorous reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express amusement and relatability; entertain and engage (increase visibility/likes). Not promotional or CTA-driven."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Yo cuando llovía no me mojaba los zapatos 🤣🤣🤣🤣') reads as a natural, colloquial user reaction: a short personal anecdote delivered humorously with multiple laughing emojis. It lacks promotional language, links, tags, or generic praise often seen in inorganic/comment-farm replies. That suggests low likelihood of being fake (score 10). \n\nHowever, this is only one comment — insufficient to conclude overall audience authenticity. The comment indicates audience engagement and relatability but carries no purchase intent or product endorsement. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this instance is mildly positive (shows organic engagement and an active, conversational audience) but provides weak evidence of conversion potential. \n\nRecommendations: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetitive phrasing, timing patterns, account profiles (new accounts, no posts, follow patterns), comment-to-like ratio, and presence of promotional or neutral/generic comments before making a buying decision."
}
Text: 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji praise / low-effort positive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express positive reaction/affection; boost visible engagement without adding substantive information. Commonly used by genuine followers but also by bots or engagement pods."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment provided: three heart-eyes emojis (😍😍😍). This is a generic, low-information positive reaction that indicates sentiment but not intent, audience relevance, or purchase interest. Such comments are high-frequency for both genuine casual followers and automated/organized engagement, so there is a substantial chance of inauthenticity (estimated fakeness ~60) but the confidence is moderate because a single data point is insufficient. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is not supportive evidence of an engaged, responsive audience — overall score is low (35) with low confidence. Recommended next checks before buying ads: volume and diversity of comments across multiple posts, presence of conversational/long-form comments, comment timestamp patterns (bursts), ratio of comments to followers, follower quality (real accounts vs obvious bots), and whether identical emoji or phrases repeat across posts/comments."
}
Text: 😍😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only (😍😍😍😍)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses positive reaction/affection; low-effort engagement meant to signal approval and boost visible engagement metrics but provides no substantive feedback or intent to purchase."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only positive reaction. Such comments are common from genuine followers as quick praise, but they are also frequently produced by bots or engagement pods because they require no context. With only one comment there is very limited evidence about audience quality or intent; the engagement signal is positive but low informational value for advertising decisions. Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments (variety, specificity, conversation, timing, and follower profiles) before relying on this account for ad purchase decisions."
}
Text: 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji_only_reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express positive sentiment/admiration and increase visible engagement; low informational value (could be a genuine low-effort follower, engagement-pod participant, or bot)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment '😍😍' is a generic emoji-only positive reaction. On its own it gives minimal evidence about audience quality or authenticity: emoji replies are common from real followers but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement pods. Fakeness is plausible but uncertain given only one example, so confidence is moderate-to-low. For an advertising decision you need broader signals: diversity of comments, commenter profile checks (followers, activity, timestamps), like-to-comment ratios, and comment timestamps. Based on this lone comment, neither a clear endorsement nor a red flag can be established — treat the post as inconclusive and request more comprehensive comment and follower data before purchasing ads."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DLSIEYbKseD
-
Comment ER: 0.00%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Single close-up frame shows a well-groomed appearance (styled hair, neat gold-tone hoop earring, polished makeup, healthy skin glow) which are mild positive markers for above-average income/lifestyle. There are no clear home, travel, vehicle, or branded premium-product cues in the provided frames, so evidence is limited — score elevated slightly but confidence is low."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 45,
"Interpretation": "Face is centered and making eye contact with the camera in the frame, typical of a talking-head/selfie shot. However, this is a still image with no audio or motion evidence of speaking; the mouth position could be a pose rather than active speech, so confidence is moderate–low."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 92,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "Strong visual signals for beauty/self-care focus: professional-looking makeup (well-blended eyeshadow, precise eyeliner, mascara, groomed brows), visible skin highlight and blush, and styled hair. These cues reliably indicate alignment with cosmetics/beauty content."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No visible logos, packaging, retailer names, or product images tied to low-cost retailers (Shein, Temu, AliExpress, Aldi, Lidl, etc.) are present in the provided frame — absence is clear in this image."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising or any pillow branding is visible in the provided frame; therefore the constraint (no pillow ads or only Sleep & Glow) is satisfied based on available evidence."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content or multiple product categories are visible in the analyzed frame, so there is no inconsistency — advertising (if present elsewhere) cannot be judged here, but frames provided show no heterogeneous ads."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "Unable to evaluate authenticity of advertising from a single close-up image: there are no visible ad captions, on‑screen text, product demonstrations, or usage explanations to assess realism or personal integration. Neutral score with very low confidence."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No advertising elements are visible in the provided frame, so frequency of advertising within these frames is best scored as 'no advertising present'."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "Structured argumentation requires speech, captions, or multi-frame sequence showing explanations; the single image provides no evidence of reasoning, comparisons, or cause–effect statements. Low score and very low confidence."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 25,
"Confidence": 12,
"Interpretation": "While makeup application appears skilled, there is no readable text, transcript, or multi-frame instructional sequence to assess how rare or deep the knowledge shared is. Visual competence suggests some domain knowledge but depth and novelty cannot be established from this frame alone."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 80,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Facial texture, subtle skin lines and mature styling cues suggest the subject is likely over 30 (possibly mid‑30s+). This is a visual estimate only — moderate confidence but not definitive without additional frames or metadata."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "Intelligence judgments require assessing speech, argumentation, or content structure. A single portrait offers no reliable evidence of cognitive or communicative ability; neutral score with very low confidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "Transmission of stable personal values (principles, voice, filter) requires first‑person speech or consistent thematic posts. The image suggests an emphasis on beauty/self‑presentation but provides no clear statements of values or worldview — very low confidence."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Facial expression (bright eyes, slight smile, lively makeup look) conveys positive energy and engagement visually. Because there is no motion or audio, enthusiasm can only be inferred from expression — moderate confidence."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 65,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "The subject presents a confident, polished look with strong eye contact and styled appearance that visually suggests personal charisma and on‑camera presence. Without dynamic content or audience reaction, this is an inference from appearance alone — confidence moderate‑low."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "There is evidence of competent makeup application and styling that could indicate a skilled enthusiast or semi‑professional (makeup artist/beauty creator). However, there are no visible credentials, professional environment, or instructional frames to confidently label her an expert — moderate uncertainty."
}
}
Comments (15)
Text: Guapísima!!😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 55,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise (short, emoji)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment; low-effort engagement that increases visible engagement metrics but provides little informational value for purchase decisions."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Guapísima!!😍😍\". This is a short, enthusiastic compliment using emojis and no links, tags, or promotional language. Such comments are common from genuine followers who are engaging emotionally with the creator, though they are also the kind of low-effort message that can be produced by bots or paid commenters. There are no clear spam signals (no repeated phrases, no URLs or hashtags, and it is language-consistent), which lowers the probability of it being fake, but the sample size (n=1) is too small to draw robust conclusions.\n\nFor advertising-buy feasibility: this single comment offers weak evidence. It indicates positive sentiment but no product-related engagement, no questions, no intent to purchase, and no indicator of audience quality. Before deciding to buy advertising space or collaborate, request a broader audit: a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, commenter profile checks (age, follower counts, activity), comment-to-like ratios, temporal patterns (sudden spikes), and look for repeated identical comments across posts. Based on this single comment, I rate the post's comment-driven credibility as below average (45/100) with moderate uncertainty."
}
Text: Pero q ideal ❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive / Compliment / Reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and emotional approval (social proof / engagement)"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Pero q ideal ❤️❤️❤️\" — a brief, informal compliment with emoji. This is consistent with genuine follower praise but is also the sort of generic positive message that can appear in both organic and low-effort fake engagement. With just this one datum there is low ability to judge authenticity or audience quality. As a signal for advertising feasibility it is weak: it shows positive sentiment but no depth (no questions, no tagging, no product-related detail) and thus limited conversion evidence. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, comment timestamps, repetition across posts, commenter account quality (real profiles vs. bots), like-to-comment ratios, and audience demographics before making an ad purchase decision."
}
Text: Bellezaaa❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express appreciation and engagement (short praise + heart emoji). Signals positive sentiment toward the post; could be an authentic follower's casual reaction but is also a common generic comment used by bots or low-effort engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Bellezaaa❤️') is available. Its elongated spelling and emoji lean slightly toward a human, casual reaction, but the comment is generic and contains no post-specific detail, which reduces its diagnostic value. With only this data point and no commenter metadata (username age, follower count, comment timing, repetition across posts), the risk that this type of comment is low-effort or automated is non-negligible. For an advertising purchase decision, this single positive but generic comment provides weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter’s profile and activity, analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts for variety and specificity, compute overall engagement rate, and run a follower/commenter authenticity audit before committing to advertising spend."
}
Text: Cada día más guapa!!!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise (generic)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive reinforcement; visible engagement that supports the influencer's image but offers little information about real product interest or audience quality."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Cada día más guapa!!!' is a short, generic compliment. Such comments are common from real fans but are also frequently produced by bots, inactive 'support' accounts, or purchased engagement. With only one example and no metadata (commenter account age, follower count, comment repetition, timing, or similar comments across posts), authenticity cannot be reliably determined. For advertising-feasibility decisions this single positive comment is weak evidence of genuine, actionable audience engagement. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample (50–200) of recent comments, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (followers, activity, profile completeness), check for repeated identical comments across posts, measure comment-to-like ratio and variety (questions, specific feedback), and evaluate audience demographics. If most comments are similarly short/generic and from low-quality accounts, treat engagement as low-quality and discount influencer reach accordingly."
}
Text: Ojazos de mi Irene ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Personal compliment / follower/friend",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express affection and admiration (emotional support), increase engagement/visibility; indicates a personal relationship or fan comment rather than a promotional or spam message."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Ojazos de mi Irene ❤️\" is a short, affectionate compliment in Spanish — likely from a follower, friend, or fan. It contains a personal reference ('mi Irene') and a heart emoji, which are typical of genuine, organic engagement rather than automated or promotional comments. There are no signs of bot-like patterns (generic marketing phrases, emojis repeated across many accounts, links, or calls-to-action). Based on this lone comment the fakeness level is low (10/100), but confidence is limited because only one comment is available for analysis. For advertising-purchase decisions this single comment provides minimal evidence: it suggests the influencer elicits personal/familiar engagement but does not reveal audience size, comment diversity, ratio of genuine to generic comments, or whether commenters are real accounts. To make a reliable ad-feasibility assessment, review a larger sample of recent comments, commenter profiles (age, language, follower counts), engagement rates (likes/comments relative to followers), and look for patterns of repetitive/generic comments or sudden spikes that indicate purchased engagement."
}
Text: 😍😍♥️guapísima
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short compliment with emojis",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive praise / social support and lightweight engagement (likes, moral support). Could be genuine follower admiration or a generic bot/spam reply designed to boost apparent engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment provided («😍😍♥️guapísima») is a brief, generic compliment with emojis. Characteristics: very short, no personalization, no question or call-to-action, and language is Spanish. Such comments are common from genuine fans but are also commonly produced by low-effort bots or mass-engagement accounts. With only one comment available the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. I estimate a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness ~40%) with low-to-moderate confidence (~40%) because the comment lacks distinguishing signals either way. For advertising feasibility the available signal is weak (overall score 35/100, confidence 35%). Recommendations to improve assessment before purchasing ads: analyze a larger set of comments, check commenter account profiles for real activity and follower counts, look for repeated generic comments across multiple posts, examine engagement rate vs follower count, inspect timestamps for unnatural bursts, and check for diversity in comment content and languages. If most comments follow this same short/generic pattern and commenter accounts look empty or repetitive, treat engagement as likely inflated and reconsider investment."
}
Text: Q guapa!!! ❤️❤️❤️ Queremos tu rutinaaaaaaa
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 60,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and social validation (boost influencer's perceived likability and attractiveness)."
},
{
"type": "Request / Content demand",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Asks the influencer to share specific content (their routine), signalling interest and intent to engage with product-related content."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment provided ('Q guapa!!! ❤️❤️❤️ Queremos tu rutinaaaaaaa') reads as organic: informal spelling ('Q' for 'Qué'), elongated word ('rutinaaaaaaa') and multiple emojis are typical of genuine follower responses. It serves two functions—praising the influencer and requesting content—which is favorable for advertising because it shows interest in actionable content (a routine). However, this is only one comment; with such a tiny sample size it's impossible to assess broader authenticity or audience quality (bots, engagement pods, or purchased comments cannot be ruled out across the whole post). Recommendation: treat this as a positive signal but low-confidence evidence. For an ad buy decision, request the full comments set, engagement rate, commenter account samples (profile completeness, follower counts, posting history), and temporal patterns to detect repetition or inorganic behavior before committing budget."
}
Text: Guapísima ❤️🙌🔥😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive reaction to appearance; signals appreciation/affection and increases visible engagement (likes/positive sentiment). Could be organic follower praise or low-effort generic engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short, positive, emoji-heavy comment ('Guapísima ❤️🙌🔥😍') is available. This is a generic praise-type comment that is common on influencer posts and by itself does not provide strong evidence for either high-quality organic engagement or inorganic activity. Strengths: it contributes positive sentiment and visible engagement. Weaknesses: the comment is low-effort and could come from a casual follower, an engagement pod participant, or a bot; there is insufficient context (no commenter profile info, no diversity of comments, no timing or like counts) to robustly judge authenticity. For advertising decisions, this single comment is neutral information — insufficient to conclude audience quality or purchase feasibility. Recommended next steps: review commenter profiles (age, follower count, activity), volume and variety of other comments, comment timing patterns, likes-to-comments ratio, and historical comment quality across several posts before making a buy decision."
}
Text: Precioso primer plano ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short positive compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express praise/affection for the image; simple engagement that signals approval and increases visible social proof."
}
],
"interpretation": "There is only a single comment: 'Precioso primer plano ❤️' — a brief, positive compliment in Spanish with an emoji. This type of comment is common among genuine followers and is low-effort, so it provides weak signal about audience quality or authenticity. Likely genuine but could also be produced by low-effort engagement (bots, engagement pods) — hence a low fakeness score (15) with moderate confidence. Because the dataset is extremely small (one comment), you cannot draw reliable conclusions about the influencer's overall engagement authenticity or suitability for advertising from comments alone. Recommendations: review a larger sample of comments across several posts, check commenter profiles for real accounts and diversity, examine like-to-follower and comment-to-follower ratios, look for repeated phrases or timing patterns, and check for meaningful comments (questions, long replies, personal references) and creator replies. Based on the single comment, risk of fake engagement appears low but evidence is insufficient to confidently approve ad spend; overall feasibility score provisionally moderate (45) with limited confidence."
}
Text: 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji_praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Short positive reaction (expresses admiration/liking) with no substantive information — quick engagement that can come from genuine followers, engagement pods or bots."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of two heart-eyes emojis (😍😍). Emoji-only comments are low-information: they indicate positive reaction but not intent, interest in purchasing, or meaningful conversation. Such comments are common from genuine casual followers but are also frequently produced by bots or engagement pods. With this single example, there is a moderate suspicion of low-quality/possibly inauthentic engagement (fakeness score 60) but low confidence because the sample is too small to generalize. For advertising feasibility the signal is weak: comments provide no audience insight, no questions, no tagging of friends, and no purchase intent—so I rate overall suitability for ad purchase low (30) with limited confidence. Recommended next steps before a buy: collect a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, examine commenter profiles for real accounts and prior activity, check comment diversity and repetition patterns, compare comment volume to follower count and likes, and look for substantive comments or direct inquiries that indicate an engaged, authentic audience."
}
Text: Guapísima!!!!! Como siempre 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and personal support; boost poster's perceived popularity and encourage engagement (likes/replies)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Guapísima!!!!! Como siempre 😍😍\" (Spanish: \"Gorgeous!!!!! As always\"). This is a short, positive, generic praise comment with emphatic punctuation and heart-eyes emojis. Possible interpretations: 1) Genuine follower/fan expressing admiration; 2) Low-effort engagement from a casual account or a scripted/bot comment intended to inflate visible support. Given the brevity and generic wording it is plausible but not certain to be genuine. The fakeness score is moderate-low (30) because generic praise is commonly both real and faked; confidence is limited (45) because the sample size is one comment and there is no metadata (commenter profile, posting time, like counts, or other comments) to validate authenticity. For advertising feasibility: a single generic positive comment provides very weak evidence of an engaged, targeted audience. The overall score (35) reflects low actionable quality from the available comments alone. Recommendation: before any ad purchase, analyze a larger sample of comments and commenter profiles (follower/commenter ratio, comment diversity, repeat commenters, account creation dates, language/region match, timing patterns, and engagement rates) to better assess audience authenticity and campaign suitability."
}
Text: Preciosísima!👏👏👏
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "express praise/positive reaction and provide low-effort engagement (likes/visibility)"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short, generic positive comment ("Preciosísima!👏👏👏"). This is consistent with organic follower praise but also matches common patterns of low-effort bot/engagement-farm comments (short adjective + emojis). There is no conversational substance, no personal detail, no tagging, and no follow-up replies, so authenticity cannot be confirmed. Given the single data point, the fakeness risk is moderate-low (estimated ~30/100) but confidence is low because of very limited sample size. For advertising decisions, this single comment provides weak evidence of a genuine, engaged audience; further analysis is recommended (review commenter profile(s), comment frequency across posts, like-to-comment ratio, repeated phrases across multiple posts, account follower quality) before buying ads or influencer partnerships."
}
Text: Bonita 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short compliment / reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and provide minimal engagement (positive sentiment). Often intended to boost apparent popularity; can be genuine follower praise or low-effort/bot engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "There is a single short, generic compliment ('Bonita 😍'). This type of comment provides positive sentiment but very little signal about real audience interest or influence (no specifics, no questions, no tags, no mention of product/context). Such comments are common both from genuine followers and from low-effort accounts/bots — hence a moderate probability of being inauthentic. With only one comment available, confidence is limited. For advertising feasibility this comment alone is weak evidence of engaged, valuable audience; recommend checking broader metrics (engagement rate across posts, unique commenters, commenter profile quality, comment timing, follower growth patterns, and language/audience match) before purchase decisions."
}
Text: 😍😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express positive reaction/affection; low-effort engagement that signals approval but provides no substantive endorsement or information."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: four heart-eyes emojis (😍😍😍😍). This is a generic, positive, low-effort engagement type. Strengths: it signals follower approval/affinity and can help visible engagement metrics. Weaknesses: emoji-only comments carry low informational value and are commonly used both by genuine casual followers and by bots/engagement farms. With a single comment there is insufficient evidence to reliably judge overall audience authenticity or influencer value for advertising. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji-only comments are ambiguous — neither strong evidence of authenticity nor clear proof of inauthenticity. For a reliable ad-feasibility decision, analyze the broader comment set and commenter accounts: look for repeated identical comments across posts, commenter follower counts and activity, timing patterns (many comments in short bursts), like counts on comments, and presence of substantive, specific comments or questions. If most comments are similarly generic (emoji-only, single-word praise) and come from low-activity accounts, the risk of low-quality/inauthentic engagement increases and would lower the overall suitability for ad spend."
}
Text: 😍❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only positive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses approval/affection (positive engagement). Low informational content; can be genuine quick praise from a follower or generic output from bots/engagement farms."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"😍❤️❤️\". Emoji-only comments give very weak signal about audience quality. They indicate positive sentiment but no substantive engagement (no questions, no product/brand reference, no discussion). Such comments are commonly produced both by genuine followers (quick praise) and by low-effort bot/engagement accounts, so the fakeness assessment is uncertain. With current data, the comments neither strongly support nor strongly refute influencer credibility for advertising. Recommendation: obtain more data before a purchase decision — number and diversity of comments, comment timestamps (bursting pattern), commenter profiles (bio, follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratio, and overall engagement rate. Run a follower/commenter authenticity audit (look for repeated short comments, many accounts with default avatars or suspicious handles) to increase confidence."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DMEH_fYKx1N
-
Comment ER: 0.00%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 75,
"Confidence": 55,
"Interpretation": "Visual markers suggest an above-average / premium lifestyle: high-quality makeup and manicure, well-maintained teeth, tasteful earrings, and a background with architectural columns that could indicate travel or an upscale location. No clear low-cost or budget signals are visible. Confidence is moderate because there are no explicit brand cues, interiors, or vehicle shots to firmly place income level."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 45,
"Interpretation": "The frame is a close, centered face shot with direct eye contact and an expressive facial pose typical of talking-head selfies. However, there is no audio/transcript or sequential frames showing mouth movement while speaking, so presence of speaking-to-camera is plausible but not fully confirmed."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 95,
"Confidence": 75,
"Interpretation": "Strong visual signals of beauty/self-care orientation: professional-looking makeup (eyeshadow, lashes, glossy lipstick), groomed hair, and polished presentation consistent with beauty or self-care content. These cues strongly indicate a content identity tied to appearance and beauty routines."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No visible logos, packaging, on-screen text, or low-cost retailer references (Shein/Temu/AliExpress/etc.) are present in the provided frame."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No pillows or pillow-brand advertising are visible in the frame; therefore no pillow advertising is detected."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content is visible in the provided frame, so there is no evidence of mixed or inconsistent ad categories."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "There is no readable on-screen text, captions, or speech to evaluate authenticity of any advertising. Because no ad content or demonstration cues are present, authenticity cannot be supported by evidence."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No advertising elements are visible in the analyzed frame(s); therefore advertising frequency within these frames is assessed as absent."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "A single posed image does not provide evidence of structured argumentation, stepwise explanations, or cause–effect reasoning. There are no captions or spoken excerpts to evaluate thinking structure."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 25,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Visual signals (makeup, grooming) indicate familiarity with beauty practices, but no textual or spoken content is available to judge rarity, depth, or diffusion level of knowledge. Evidence for expertise or advanced, uncommon knowledge is lacking."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 65,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Facial features and styling suggest someone likely in their 30s (possibly mid-30s+). This is an imprecise visual estimate with moderate uncertainty due to makeup, lighting, and single-image limitations."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "Presentation appears polished and deliberate, which can correlate with communicative competence, but there is no speech or textual evidence to evaluate clarity of reasoning, vocabulary, or analytical ability. Assessment is therefore speculative and low-confidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "The image communicates an emphasis on appearance and self-care, but there is no explicit first-person language, stated principles, or value-driven captions to demonstrate stable personal values or an 'own truth' mechanism."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 85,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "The subject displays a bright, warm smile and engaging eye contact—visual cues of positive energy and enthusiasm. Because emotional tone is visible in the face, confidence in this reading is moderate."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 85,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Close framing, direct gaze, and an inviting smile are strong nonverbal indicators of charisma and the ability to engage visually. This assessment is based on visual impact in the frame rather than spoken influence."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "There are no visible credentials, professional environment, or instructional captions to indicate formal expert status in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, or related fields. The polished beauty look suggests strong enthusiast-level familiarity but not proven professional expertise."
}
}
Comments (15)
Text: Más hermosa imposible 💋💋
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 55,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment (generic short + emojis)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive reinforcement / social proof — expresses admiration but is low-effort; can serve to boost perceived popularity or encourage the creator."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short, highly generic positive comment (\"Más hermosa imposible 💋💋\"). This provides very limited signal: it functions as basic social proof but lacks depth (no product mention, no questions, no substantive engagement). Such brief emoji-laden praise is commonly posted by genuine fans but is also a frequent pattern for bot or low-effort engagement accounts; therefore I rate fakeness moderate (45/100) with moderate confidence. For advertising decisions this comment alone is insufficient — low quantity and low informational quality suggest weak comment-driven validation of audience interest. Recommend reviewing overall comment volume, diversity, timing, commenter profiles, like-to-comment ratio, and follower authenticity before proceeding with ad purchase."
}
Text: Qué guaoa! Ojazos no, lo siguiente! 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 65,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and enthusiasm to engage with the post and support the influencer (boost visibility and positive sentiment)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Qué guaoa! Ojazos no, lo siguiente! 😍😍😍') is a short, enthusiastic compliment in colloquial Spanish with expressive punctuation and emojis. Features suggesting authenticity: informal spelling/typo ('guaoa'), slang-like phrasing, and natural emoji use. Features suggesting possible inauthenticity: brevity and generic praise — characteristics common to both genuine fans and low-effort engagement (including paid/comment farms). Given only one comment and no contextual data (commenter profile, timestamps, repetition patterns, like counts, or other comments), confidence is limited. Recommendation: examine a larger sample of comments, check commenter account(s) for follower count, posting history, avatar and bio, timing patterns, and repetition across posts to better assess authenticity before making advertising decisions."
}
Text: Bonita😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express praise and positive sentiment (flattery, social validation); increases visible engagement and post appeal."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Bonita😍😍😍' — a short compliment with emojis. This type of comment is very common among genuine followers but is also commonly produced by bots, engagement pods, or low-effort paid commenters. With one short emoji-rich compliment there is limited signal: it likely reflects positive sentiment but provides almost no information about commenter authenticity, audience relevance, or purchase intent. I rate fakeness moderate-low (30) because the content is plausible as organic engagement but equally easy to fabricate; confidence is moderate (50) due to the extremely small sample. Overall suitability of the post's comments as evidence for advertising purchase is low (40) with modest confidence (45) — there is insufficient quantity and variety of comments to judge audience quality or organic engagement. Recommendation: request a larger sample of comments, examine commenter profiles (age, location, activity, follower counts), look for repeating patterns (identical short praises, usernames, timestamps), and check other posts for consistency before relying on this influencer for ad spend."
}
Text: Guapísima 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short compliment / positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and provide social proof (boosts perceived popularity). Short, emoji-enhanced comments are low-effort engagement that can be genuine from followers or easily produced by bots/accounts used to inflate engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is available: \"Guapísima 😍\" (very beautiful + heart-eyes). This is a generic, positive compliment and provides surface-level social proof but contains no product-related information, no conversation, and no signals of a committed or purchasing audience. Such short compliments are common from real followers but are also the easiest type of comment to fabricate or generate en masse, so fakeness is plausible but uncertain. Given the single data point, confidence is low. For advertising feasibility, this comment alone is insufficient evidence of an engaged, conversion-ready audience—recommend requesting more data (comment volume, diversity, comment timestamps, follower demographics, like:comment ratio, recent post engagement, and examples of product-related comments or affiliate conversions) before making a buy decision."
}
Text: Bonito primer plano ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "compliment / positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "express praise for the photo (engagement / social approval)"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Bonito primer plano ❤️') is a short, specific compliment referring to the close-up shot and includes a heart emoji. That specificity (mentioning 'primer plano') leans toward a genuine reaction rather than a generic spam phrase, but with only one comment it's impossible to rule out automated or low-effort engagement. There are no overt signs of bot-like behavior (no tags, links, repeated generic phrases, or promo requests), but the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions. For influencer-ad buying decisions, this single positive comment is mildly supportive but insufficient: recommend analyzing a larger sample of recent comments, commenter account quality (real profiles, follower counts, interaction patterns), overall engagement rate (comments-to-followers, likes), and comment diversity to evaluate authenticity and audience fit before purchasing advertising or partnerships."
}
Text: Guapísima!😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive emoji",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and provide positive engagement/social proof (short praise + emoji). Likely from a follower or casual admirer; increases visible engagement but carries low informational value."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short comment is available: 'Guapísima!😍' — a single-word compliment plus an emoji. This pattern is common among genuine followers but is also easy to fabricate (bots or purchased comments often use generic praise and emojis). Given the brevity and lack of contextual detail, there is low evidentiary value: it shows some positive engagement but tells us nothing about audience depth, authenticity, or purchase intent. Fakeness score is low-to-moderate (20) because the comment is typical of real users, but with limited confidence (60) since a single, generic comment cannot reliably distinguish organic from manufactured engagement. Overall assessment score (35) reflects that the current comment sample is insufficient to justify advertising spend on its own — you should request more data (number of unique commenters, comment diversity, commenter profiles, timing patterns, like-to-follower ratio, historical engagement, and reach) before making a buy decision."
}
Text: Que guapa te veo bonita❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 55,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "compliment / generic praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment (praise the influencer's appearance); social affirmation to increase visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment, 'Que guapa te veo bonita❤️', is a short, generic compliment with an emoji. This pattern is typical of genuine follower praise or a casual friend comment and shows low signs of automation or coordinated fake engagement (no repeated phrasing, no link/CTA, no obvious bot markers). However, one comment is a very small sample and gives limited signal about overall audience quality. For advertising feasibility: sentiment is positive but engagement volume and variety are insufficient to conclude authentic, high-value interaction. Recommended next checks before purchase: comment diversity and volume across multiple posts, commenter profile quality (real profiles, follower counts, activity), timing/patterns of comments, like-to-comment ratio, and presence of conversational replies or specific product-related feedback."
}
Text: Estás radiante
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 60,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and boost creator's perceived attractiveness/engagement"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment, \"Estás radiante\" (You look radiant), is a short positive compliment in Spanish/Portuguese. It lacks hallmarks of clearly fake comments (no links, generic call-to-action, repeated phrasing or obvious bot markers), so the likelihood of being genuine is relatively high but not certain — short generic compliments can also be left by bots or by casual followers. Given there is only one comment provided, the sample is too small to draw a strong conclusion about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising decisions, request more data: number and diversity of comments across multiple posts, commenter account profiles (age, follower/following ratios, activity), repeat/comment patterns, timestamps, and like-to-follower engagement rate. Based on this single comment alone, I assign a low fakeness score (20) but only moderate confidence, and a modest overall suitability score (60) with low confidence because the dataset is extremely limited."
}
Text: Estás impresionante 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment toward the poster; social validation that can boost engagement/visibility."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: \"Estás impresionante 😍😍\" — a short, positive compliment in Spanish. This looks like typical follower praise and is plausibly organic, but is also a form commonly produced by bots or engagement pods because it is short and generic. Given the single data point, there is insufficient evidence to conclude authenticity or meaningful audience engagement. For advertising feasibility this single comment is weak signal: it indicates positive sentiment but not scale, depth (no questions or conversation), or evidence of real, purchase-intent interactions. Recommended next steps before buying ads: obtain the full comment set for the post, check commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), distribution of comment types, like-to-comment ratio, comment timestamps, and overall engagement rate across multiple recent posts. With that broader data you can better judge audience quality and ad purchase suitability."
}
Text: Que guapa 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 50,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment (positive engagement)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/positive sentiment (short praise + emojis). Signals friendly engagement but provides little informational value; such comments are commonly genuine from followers but also frequently produced by bots or engagement farms."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment: \"Que guapa 😍😍😍\" is a brief, generic compliment with positive emojis. Characteristics that increase perceived fakeness: extreme brevity, common phrase, no account-specific reference, high emoji use — all typical of both real casual followers and low-effort bot/comments-for-likes. Characteristics that decrease perceived fakeness: comment in a specific language (Spanish) may match influencer audience and suggests natural follower behavior. Given only one comment, confidence is low. For advertising feasibility this single-comment sample is insufficient: it shows positive sentiment but not meaningful audience engagement, specificity, or advocacy. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments (diversity, conversation depth, user profiles), likes-to-comments ratio, follower growth patterns, account follower authenticity (profile completeness, posting history), and engagement rate over time before making an ad-buy decision."
}
Text: Guapa!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive engagement / social proof — short praise intended to flatter the poster and increase visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Guapa!') is available, which yields very limited signal. One-word compliments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort bot accounts or by acquaintances; on their own they are neither a strong indicator of authentic audience nor of fraudulent activity. Given this ambiguity, the estimated fakeness is moderate (45/100) with low confidence (40/100). For advertising feasibility the current evidence is insufficient: the tentative overall score is 55/100 with low confidence (35/100). To improve assessment, examine more comments across multiple posts for repetition of identical short comments, check commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns (many similar comments in short bursts), the ratio of meaningful comments to one-word comments, likes-to-followers engagement rate, follower growth spikes, and any history of sponsored content performance. If a substantial portion of comments are similarly generic and come from low-quality accounts, reduce the ad investment; if comments diversify into questions, testimonials, and conversations from established accounts, consider proceeding with a test campaign."
}
Text: ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "simple positive reaction / generic engagement; low informational content; can be from a genuine follower or automated/bot accounts"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: a heart emoji (\"❤️\"). Emoji-only comments are common and carry very little signal about audience quality or authenticity. They can represent genuine quick positive reactions from real followers, but they are also frequently produced by bot farms or low-effort engagement networks because they are easy to automate. With one emoji comment there is insufficient evidence to judge the authenticity of the commenter base or the influencer's audience. For advertising decisions, this is weak support: the comment neither confirms engaged, relevant followers nor demonstrates meaningful conversation or intent. Recommended next steps before purchase: review a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter profiles for indicators of authenticity (profile pictures, follower counts, posting history), analyze like-to-comment ratios and timing patterns, and run a follower audit for signs of inorganic growth. Based solely on this single emoji comment, treat engagement quality as unknown-to-low."
}
Text: ❤️✨️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 25,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express positive sentiment/support (lightweight engagement). Increases visible engagement but provides little information about genuine interest or purchase intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided (\"❤️✨️\"). Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine casual reactions from real followers, or low-effort/bot responses used to inflate engagement. With this single data point we cannot reliably distinguish. The low informational value of emoji comments means they are weak evidence of a highly engaged, purchase-intent audience. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment alone should be treated as neutral-to-weak positive signal — it shows some engagement but not meaningful endorsement or interest. Confidence in these assessments is limited because there is no context: no commenter profile(s), no comment volume or distribution, no timing, and no comparison to likes or other comments. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of comments for variety and specificity, check commenter profiles for real followers vs. throwaway accounts, measure ratio of substantive comments to emoji/generic replies, and compute overall engagement rate vs. follower count."
}
Text: 😍❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 55,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses a positive emotional reaction (approval/affection) without substantive feedback; primarily serves to increase visible engagement/vanity metrics rather than provide actionable audience insight."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available, and it consists solely of emojis (😍❤️). Emoji-only comments are common, low-effort engagement that can come from real followers but are also commonly produced by bots or purchased engagement. They provide no purchase intent, product feedback, or demographic signal. Given this, the comment provides limited evidence of a genuinely engaged, commercially receptive audience. For advertising decision-making this is weak: emoji reactions slightly help surface visibility but do not demonstrate conversion potential. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check repeat commenters, timing patterns, follower quality (accounts' age, activity, profile completeness), engagement rate vs follower count, and look for meaningful, specific comments or messages indicating interest in products/services before committing ad spend."
}
Text: Preciosa ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Short positive engagement aimed at praising appearance and increasing visible engagement (simple praise + emoji)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short comment ('Preciosa ❤️') is available. This is a low-effort, generic positive comment that provides little signal about genuine audience interest or intent to convert for advertising. Such comments are common from both real followers and from automated/paid engagement services; the phrasing and emoji make it typical of low-information engagement. Given the single data point, I assess a moderate-to-high risk of inauthenticity (fakeness score 60) but with only moderate confidence (50) because a genuine follower could easily leave this message. For ad-purchase decisions this sample is insufficient; overall suitability is low (score 40) with modest confidence (45). Recommended next steps before buying ads: inspect the commenter(s) profiles for follower counts and posting history, check broader comment volume and variety across multiple posts, analyze like-to-comment ratios, look for repeated/similar comments from different accounts, and run a follower authenticity audit. Without those checks, rely on caution and further verification."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DNVdRMuKtaJ
-
Comment ER: 0.17%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Interior (wooden louvered door, patterned tile floor), neat decor, quality phone case and simple jewelry suggest a mid-to-above-average lifestyle rather than low-income. No clear premium-brand cues (Aesop/La Mer), high-end vehicle, or luxury decor visible — so not scored as premium/luxury."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Single mirror selfie: subject looks at camera and smiles, but there is no evidence of speaking-to-camera or video frames showing active on-camera explanation. Cannot confirm 'talking head' format from this static frame."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Visible grooming, styled hair, makeup and attention to appearance are present, which can indicate interest in beauty/self-care. However there are no explicit beauty products, skincare routines, devices, or repeated content signals in the frame to strongly tie identity to beauty."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No visible logos, product packaging, or on-screen ads referencing low-cost retailers (Shein/Temu/AliExpress/Lidl/etc.) in the provided frame."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No pillows or pillow-brand advertising visible in the frame; therefore no pillow advertising is detected."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content or product categories are visible in the analyzed frame, so there is no evidence of inconsistent or heterogeneous ads."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 70,
"Interpretation": "No advertising or sponsored messaging is visible to evaluate authenticity. In the absence of ads, there is also no sign of scripted promotional content in this frame."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "Across the provided content (single frame) there are no visible ads or sponsored materials — interpreted as no advertising present."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No spoken content, captions, or on-screen text are available in the frame to evaluate logical structure, argumentation, or explanatory style."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No instructional or informational content, captions, or demonstrations are visible; cannot assess the rarity or depth of knowledge conveyed."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 80,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Facial features, subtle signs of maturity, and overall appearance suggest the subject is likely over 35. This is a visual estimate from a single photo, so confidence is moderate rather than high."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No verbal or written content is available to judge cognitive clarity, vocabulary, or analytical ability. Neutral mid score assigned due to lack of evidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "The visible pregnancy (posing to show belly) may indicate personal values around family or motherhood, and the confident pose suggests some identity expression, but there are no captions or verbal statements to confirm stable principles, voice, or audience-filtering."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 80,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Subject is smiling and posing confidently for a selfie, which indicates positive energy and pleasant affect in this frame. This is a single-frame observation, so confidence is moderate."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "The subject appears confident, warm, and approachable in the selfie — signals of charisma — but absence of motion, speech, or audience response limits the strength of this judgment."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No evidence of professional credentials, clinical or studio environment, specialized tools, or instructional content tied to cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, plastic surgery, or fashion. Cannot infer expert status from this frame."
}
}
Comments (15)
Text: Monísimo y te queda genial, estás guapísima 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "positive_compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "praise/endorsement and social engagement (expresses approval/attraction; supports influencer's image)"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Monísimo y te queda genial, estás guapísima 😍') is a short, generic compliment in Spanish. Such comments often come from genuine followers but are also commonly produced by engagement-seeking accounts or bots because they contain no specifics (no mention of product, occasion, or personal detail) and no call-to-action. With only one comment available, confidence is limited. For advertising decisions this sample provides weak evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. I recommend reviewing a larger sample of recent posts (comment diversity and repetition across posts), overall engagement rates (likes/comments relative to follower count), commenter profiles (real accounts vs. suspicious patterns), and audience demographics before proceeding with a purchase."
}
Text: Ay que bonita!!! 👏👏
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment / positive praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and provide social validation; low-effort engagement that signals positive sentiment but offers little informational value (no question, no reference to product/experience)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment, 'Ay que bonita!!! 👏👏', is a short, enthusiastic compliment. Positive sentiment is clear, but the comment is low-effort and generic — exactly the kind of reply that both genuine followers and automated/bot accounts often leave. With only one comment there is insufficient data to gauge authenticity, audience quality, or real engagement. For advertising feasibility this evidence is weak: the comment shows friendliness and confidence from at least one engager, but it does not demonstrate meaningful interest in a product, purchase intent, or a conversational community. Recommendation: gather more data (total comments, commenter profiles, comment diversity, timestamps, engagement rate, follower quality) before deciding on ad spend. If many comments are similar (short/generic, from newly created or low-activity accounts), raise fakeness concerns and lower suitability for paid partnerships."
}
Text: Qué bonita estás
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/praise to the poster; increases visible engagement (vanity metric). Low informational value for advertiser (no product mention, no intent)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Qué bonita estás' is a short, generic compliment in Spanish. Such comments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently used by bots or engagement-for-follow schemes because they are low-effort and universally applicable. Based on this one comment alone the estimated fakeness is relatively low (20/100) but with only moderate confidence: there is insufficient context (no comment timing, commenter profile, repetition patterns, language consistency, or additional comments). For advertising feasibility this comment provides little actionable signal — it demonstrates some positive sentiment but not interest in products, services, or purchasing intent. Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles for authenticity (age, follower counts, posting history), look for repeated identical comments across posts, measure engagement rate (comments per follower), and check story interactions and DMs before deciding on ad spend. Given current evidence, feasibility is low-to-moderate (30/100) but this assessment has limited confidence and should not drive a final purchase decision without more data."
}
Text: Guapísima 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment / positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and show support; provides social proof and superficial engagement"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Guapísima 😍\". This is a generic, positive compliment commonly seen on influencer posts. Strengths: it contributes to visible social proof and signals follower appreciation. Weaknesses: its brevity, lack of personalization (no name, no reference to content), and generic wording make it ambiguous — it could be genuine from a follower, a casual/nearly-automated response, or a low-effort engagement account. Given the very small sample size, the fakeness estimate is moderate (35/100) with limited confidence. For advertising decisions, this single comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommend additional checks before purchasing ads: analyze larger comment sample for diversity and conversation, check commenter account quality (age, follower counts, activity), look for repeated comments or identical wording across posts, measure overall engagement rate (likes + comments relative to followers), and review timestamps for unnatural bursts. Based on the current limited data, proceed cautiously; request more comprehensive comment and follower analysis before committing to an ad buy."
}
Text: ❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji_only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Low-effort positive reaction (expresses affection/approval). Serves to increase visible engagement but conveys no substantive feedback; can be posted by genuine followers, users in engagement pods, or simple bots/automations."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"❤️❤️❤️\". This is an emoji-only, positive but content-free response. Such comments are common and ambiguous: they may indicate a real follower's quick approval or be the product of engagement pods or low-effort/bot accounts. On its own this comment provides minimal signal about audience quality, intent to purchase, or niche relevance. For advertising feasibility: this evidence is weak — the post shows at least some visible engagement, but the quality and authenticity of that engagement cannot be determined from one emoji comment. Recommended next steps before a buy decision: examine overall comment volume and diversity across multiple recent posts; check commenter profiles (follower counts, posting history, avatars, usernames) for signs of real accounts versus bots; analyze likes-to-comments ratio, comment repetition (same emoji/comments across posts), follower growth patterns, and reach metrics (impressions). With current data, I rate the likelihood that comments are fake at 40/100 (moderate chance) with moderate confidence, and overall comment-driven suitability for advertising at 35/100 with moderate confidence. Additional data would substantially increase assessment accuracy."
}
Text: Guapísima 🔥🙌❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment; simple engagement to support the creator (emoji-enhanced praise)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short positive comment ('Guapísima 🔥🙌❤️') is available. This is a generic praise-type comment likely intended to show support or admiration; the use of emojis and everyday language slightly favors it being genuine, but such brief compliments are also commonly used by bots or inactive accounts, so fakeness risk is non-negligible. With only one comment there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment quality, community authenticity, or engagement health for advertising decisions. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, timestamps, commenter account metadata (age, follower counts, posting history), and overall engagement rates before making an ad purchase decision."
}
Text: La mami más guapa 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Fan praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and emotional support; boost engagement and positive sentiment toward the influencer"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"La mami más guapa 😍😍😍\" is an affectionate compliment in Spanish with positive emojis. It appears to be organic fan engagement (short, personal praise) rather than a commercial or bot-like message. Its purpose is social support and positive reinforcement, not promotion or product-related feedback. This kind of comment signals warm follower sentiment but provides very little information about audience quality, conversion potential, or genuine reach on its own. Given only one comment, there's low signal for ad-buy decisions — you should analyze comment volume, diversity, timing, follower authenticity, and recurring patterns (repeated short compliments from the same accounts, linkless spam, or many generic one-word comments) before concluding. Recommendation: treat this as a small positive indicator of likability but insufficient evidence to justify ad spend without broader engagement and audience authenticity metrics."
}
Text: Muy guapa con él 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive reinforcement and social approval (engagement directed at the subject in the photo; expresses attraction/admiration)"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short, positive comment is available: \"Muy guapa con él 😍\" (\"Very pretty with him\"). The message is natural-language, uses a specific reference ('with him') and an emoji, which typically suggests a genuine follower reaction rather than an obviously templated bot message. However, the sample size is extremely small, and the comment is generic and low-effort, so it carries limited evidence of deep audience engagement or authenticity. For advertising feasibility this single comment is a weak signal: it shows at least some positive sentiment but not the volume, diversity, or conversational depth desired to confirm an engaged, real audience. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, check commenter profiles for real accounts (activity, follower counts, posting history), review like counts and engagement rate, and look for patterns of repetitive or templated wording that would indicate inauthentic commenting."
}
Text: ❤️Que mami más guapa❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment/praise (emoji)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/affection and provide positive engagement (social support and visibility). Short, emoji-rich messages commonly boost apparent engagement without substantive conversation."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('❤️Que mami más guapa❤️') is a short, emoji-heavy compliment in Spanish. It reads like a genuine follower or friend expressing admiration — the use of 'mami' and hearts is informal and natural. At the same time, such brief, generic praise is a common pattern for both real fans and low-effort scripted/bot comments, so there is some ambiguity. Because only one comment is provided, confidence is limited: the low fakeness score reflects that this single message shows no clear signs of automation (natural phrasing, language match), but the sample is far too small to rule out wider inauthenticity in the account's comment pool. For advertising feasibility: this single comment neither strongly supports nor rules out authenticity. Recommendation: before buying advertising, analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts and check commenter accounts (age, follower counts, posting history), repetition of identical phrases across posts, timing patterns, overall engagement rate relative to follower count, and ratio of meaningful comments to generic emojis. If those checks show similar natural, diverse comments, ad feasibility would increase; if you find many identical short praises from low-quality accounts, lower the score accordingly."
}
Text: Guapa!!!❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment (short praise with emojis)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/positive sentiment; low-effort engagement that increases visible comment count and signals popularity."
},
{
"type": "Low-effort / possibly bot-like comment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Could be templated or automated praise used by engagement farms or bots; provides minimal informative value about genuine interest."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Guapa!!!❤️❤️❤️' is a short, enthusiastic compliment in Spanish with multiple heart emojis. This pattern is ambiguous: it plausibly comes from a genuine follower/fan (natural language, no links or obvious spam), but it is also the type of low-effort, templated praise commonly produced by engagement bots or comment farms (short, generic, emoji-heavy). Given only one comment to analyze, the evidence is weak — hence a moderate fakeness score (45) with limited confidence (40).\n\nImplications for advertising feasibility: this single generic comment is not strong evidence of a high-quality, engaged audience. The overall assessment is low-to-moderate (35) with low confidence (35). Before purchasing advertising or partnering, request and analyze more data: a larger sample of recent comments (diversity, specificity), commenter account audits (real profiles vs. likely bots, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns (bursts of many generic comments), like-to-comment ratios, and conversion metrics (clicks, story replies, DM leads). Also check language match between influencer audience and your target market. Those checks will materially raise confidence in the audience quality and ad ROI prediction."
}
Text: Me encanta 😍😍😍, súper guapa!!!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 75,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration of the influencer's appearance; positive engagement and social proof to other viewers."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment: \"Me encanta 😍😍😍, súper guapa!!!\" is a short, colloquial Spanish compliment with emojis. Characteristics (natural phrasing, emojis, no links/handles, not generic one-word spam) lean toward genuine positive engagement rather than clearly synthetic. However, one comment is insufficient to judge overall authenticity or audience quality. Fakeness risk is low-moderate (20/100) but confidence is limited by lack of more comments and account-level signals. For advertising feasibility: this single comment is a small positive indicator but you should examine overall engagement rate, comment diversity, repetition patterns, follower quality, time distribution of comments, and presence of bot-like replies before purchasing. Recommend gathering a larger sample of comments and account metrics before final ad buy decision."
}
Text: Tu siempre preciosa!!!!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment / positive praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and reinforce influencer's image; increases visible engagement but provides little purchase intent signal."
},
{
"type": "Possible bot/generic engagement (not observed)",
"count": 0,
"purpose": "Short, repeatable praise comments can be automated; none explicitly identified in this single-item sample but remains a plausible alternative explanation."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: \"Tu siempre preciosa!!!!\" — a short, enthusiastic compliment in Spanish. This is consistent with genuine fan praise but is also the kind of generic message that could be posted by low-effort accounts or bots. With a single data point there is insufficient evidence to judge audience quality or real influence on purchasing. The low fakeness score reflects that the comment appears genuine in tone, but the confidence is limited because generic compliments are ambiguous. For advertising feasibility, this single comment is a weak positive signal: it shows some engagement but not meaningful intent or depth. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of recent comments for patterns (variety, conversational replies, specificity), inspect commenter profiles (account age, avatar, posting history, follower/following ratios), check comment timing and repetition, and compute comment-to-follower and engagement rates before making a buying decision."
}
Text: Estás preciosa Ireeee😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment/Support (likely genuine follower)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Praise and positive engagement — social proof that reinforces influencer likability and rapport with audience."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment: \"Estás preciosa Ireeee😍\" reads as a personalized compliment. Features suggesting genuineness: use of a nickname/elongated name (\"Ireeee\"), informal Spanish, and an emoji — characteristics typical of real followers or friends rather than generic bot replies. No promotional language, hashtags, links, repeated phrases or obvious spam patterns are present. However, this is only one comment; sample size is too small to generalize about the comment section or audience authenticity. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single positive comment is mildly encouraging but insufficient. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check engagement rates (likes/comments relative to follower count), inspect commenter profiles for bot indicators (recent creation, generic usernames, no profile pictures), and look for comment diversity and repetition patterns. Based on current evidence alone I rate fakeness low (10/100) but give moderate confidence due to limited data, and I give a neutral feasibility rating (50/100) with low–moderate confidence."
}
Text: No hay embarazada más bonita y cañón! 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and support for the influencer (positive engagement that signals audience affection/approval)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"No hay embarazada más bonita y cañón! 😍\" is a short, colloquial Spanish compliment toward a pregnant influencer. Linguistic cues (native phrasing, slang 'cañón') and the emoji suggest a genuine fan or acquaintance rather than a templated bot message. There are no obvious spam markers (no links, no generic phrases repeated across accounts). However, this is only one data point — you cannot reliably judge overall comment authenticity or audience quality from it alone. For advertising decisions, this comment is mildly positive evidence of authentic engagement but insufficient on its own. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition or identical phrasing, check commenter account profiles (age, follower counts, activity), measure overall engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), look for patterns in timing (many comments in short bursts), and inspect top commenters for real accounts vs. likely bots. Based on this single comment, fakeness risk appears low but uncertainty is high; proceed with a more comprehensive audit before committing ad spend."
}
Text: Que bellaaaa ❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive affirmation / social validation — low-effort engagement that signals approval but gives little information about genuine audience interest or purchasing intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Que bellaaaa ❤️❤️❤️' is a brief, positive compliment. Features such as elongated spelling and heart emojis can indicate an enthusiastic fan, but the format is also common in automated or copy-paste bot comments. With only one short, generic comment it is impossible to reliably judge audience authenticity or ad suitability. I rate the comment's fakeness as moderately low (35) but with only medium confidence (60) because context is missing (commenter profile, comment frequency, language match, timing, overall comment distribution). Overall suitability for advertising based on this comment alone is low (40) with medium confidence (50). Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles, engagement rates, timing patterns, and look for substantive, specific comments and repeat commenter behaviour before making an advertising decision."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DHZBMV6KQfm
-
Comment ER: 0.03%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 25,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Single outdoor frame shows a person in casual outdoor clothing next to an old tree; no visible premium home interiors, luxury brands, premium candles, or high-end vehicles. Absence of positive premium markers and no clear low-cost negative markers yields a low-but-uncertain estimate."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "Frame is a wide outdoor shot with the subject looking at a tree, not into camera; no centered face, no visible mouth movement or frame composition typical of a talking-head format. Strong evidence that this frame is not a talking-head recording."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No skincare, cosmetics, beauty devices, routine steps, or related props are visible in the provided frame; content appears nature/outdoor oriented rather than beauty/self-care focused."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No visible logos, product packaging, or retail advertising (AliExpress, Shein, Temu, Lidl, Aldi etc.) are present in the frame. Based on the available image there is no low-end retail advertising."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No pillows or pillow-related branding/advertising are visible in the frame; therefore no pillow advertising is detected."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No advertisements are visible in the provided frame, so there is no evidence of inconsistent or heterogeneous ad categories within this content sample."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "There is no advertising content in the frame to evaluate authenticity (no demonstration, captions, or product context). Because advertising is absent, authenticity cannot be reliably judged from this image alone."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "Across the provided frame there are no signs of advertising or sponsored product placements; therefore frequency is scored as 'no advertising present.'"
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No speech, captions, or explanatory text are available in the frame to assess argumentation or structure; inability to observe structured verbal reasoning leads to a very low score with low confidence."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No instructional content, technical text, or demonstrations are visible to indicate the transmission of specialized or rare knowledge; assessment is limited and uncertain based on a single outdoor image."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Subject appears as an adult in outdoor clothing, but the face is small/distant in the frame and precise age cues are not discernible. Low confidence — image does not provide reliable age indicators to confirm >35."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "No speech, writing, or behavior in the frame that indicates cognitive/communicative ability. Neutral score with very low confidence due to lack of evidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "Frame suggests an interest in nature or exploration but provides no explicit statements of principles, voice, or audience-filtering behavior. Evidence for stable value-driven messaging is not present in the image."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "The subject appears engaged with the environment (looking at or touching the tree), which could indicate mild interest or appreciation, but facial expression and vocal cues are not visible; therefore enthusiasm is estimated low-to-moderate with low confidence."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No on-camera addressing, dynamic gestures, or audience-directed behavior are visible; a solitary outdoor pose gives little basis to judge inspirational charisma, so score is low with low confidence."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No visible credentials, clinical or professional environment, specialist tools, or on-screen textual claims of professional status in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup, surgery, or fashion. Strong evidence absence of expert signals in this frame."
}
}
Comments (7)
Text: Maravilloso Irenita❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 70,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive support",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and emotional support for the influencer; likely follower engagement to encourage/affirm the creator."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment: 'Maravilloso Irenita❤️' is a short, affectionate Spanish compliment with a diminutive name and heart emoji. That specificity (nickname + emoji) makes it more likely genuine rather than a generic bot message, so fakeness is assessed low (10/100) but not zero due to lack of metadata (username, account age, comment timing, other comments). Because only one comment is provided, overall assessment for advertising feasibility is limited: there is evidence of at least one engaged/friendly follower but no information on volume, diversity, authenticity patterns, or comment-to-follower ratio. I therefore give a cautious mid-low feasibility score (45/100) with low confidence (30/100). Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of recent comments, inspect commenter accounts for authenticity (profile photos, posting history, follower counts), check comment repetition and timing patterns, and measure likes/replies on comments to better judge engagement quality and ad purchase suitability."
}
Text: Qué bonito el árbol 😍😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive compliment / emoji reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment about the visual content (the tree). Likely low-effort engagement (emotion, not conversation or promotional intent). Could be genuine praise or a generic comment used to inflate visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Qué bonito el árbol 😍😍😍😍'. This is a brief, positive, emoji-heavy reaction. Strengths: indicates an emotional, favorable response to the post. Weaknesses: it provides very low informational value for assessing audience authenticity or purchase intent — no questions, no tags, no discussion, no reference to product/service. Short, generic compliments like this can be either genuine or produced by low-effort accounts/bots; on its own it is not strong evidence either way. For an advertising purchase decision you should not rely on this single comment. Recommended next steps: analyze the full comment set (volume and diversity of comments), commenter profiles (activity, follower counts, account age), comment-to-like ratio, timing patterns (burstiness), and presence of conversational, specific or critical comments that indicate real users. Given the single comment, I rate the fakeness risk as moderate-low (25/100) with low-to-moderate confidence (40/100) and overall ad-feasibility based on comments as low (30/100) with low confidence (35/100)."
}
Text: Qué bonito hablar así de un padre 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 70,
"overall_score": 75,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "positive/emotional praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and emotional engagement about the subject (father); provides social proof and supportive sentiment."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Qué bonito hablar así de un padre 😍\" appears genuine: it is context-specific, in natural Spanish, and uses an emoji consistent with organic reactions. That gives a low fakeness likelihood (estimated ~10%). However, this assessment is based on one comment only — sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall audience authenticity. For advertising feasibility, this kind of meaningful, positive comment is a favorable signal (emotional connection and real engagement), but you should validate by analyzing a larger set of comments, commenter account quality (profiles, activity, follower counts), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and diversity of comment types before making a buy decision."
}
Text: ❤️❤️❤️😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only positive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/support; low-effort engagement that increases visible engagement but carries little informational value about genuine interest or purchase intent. Could be from a real follower, a fan account, or automated/generic engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists solely of positive emojis (hearts and heart-eyes). Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous: they indicate positive sentiment but provide no substantive signal of purchase intent or audience quality. With one comment, it is impossible to reliably distinguish genuine follower reaction from low-effort or automated engagement. Given this, the moderate fakeness score reflects the plausibility of generic/bot behavior, but confidence is low because of the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility this comment is weak evidence — it neither supports strong influence over purchasing decisions nor flags clear fraud. Recommended further checks before buying ads or collaborations: analyze a larger set of comments for diversity and specificity, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts (profile pics, posting history, follower counts), check comment timestamps for evidence of bulk/comment-farming, compare likes-to-comments engagement ratio, and review other posts for consistent authentic interaction. Based on the single emoji comment alone, I would be cautious about proceeding and request more data."
}
Text: Preciosa y esclarecedora fotografía 💚
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "positive compliment / generic praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses admiration for the photo, provides social approval and lightweight engagement but no purchase intent or specific product feedback."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Preciosa y esclarecedora fotografía 💚') is a short, natural-sounding compliment in Spanish with an emoji. As an isolated data point it suggests a positive reaction from at least one viewer but has low informational value for advertising decisions: it does not indicate interest in a product, a meaningful conversation, or evidence of a highly engaged community. The fakeness risk is low-to-moderate — the wording is natural and not overtly bot-like, but generic compliments are also commonly used by bots or engagement farms. Confidence in these judgments is limited because there's only one comment; you should review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), comment diversity, timing patterns, and other engagement metrics (likes, saves, shares, follower growth) before making an ad-buy decision. Recommended next steps: audit 50–200 recent comments, check for repetitive phrasing, inspect top commenters for real profiles, and compare comment-to-like ratios to platform benchmarks."
}
Text: Que bonito …. De parte de tu papi .. muchísimas gracias .. ♥️♥️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 25,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Supportive / Personal",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express gratitude/affection, likely from a close follower or family member (engagement and relationship signalling rather than promotional content)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Que bonito …. De parte de tu papi .. muchísimas gracias .. ♥️♥️') reads as a genuine, affectionate/thankful remark, possibly from a relative or close follower. It is not promotional and contains personal language ('de parte de tu papi'), which reduces the likelihood of being a generic bought comment. However, this is only one data point: it is insufficient to judge the overall authenticity or engagement quality of the influencer's audience. For an advertising purchase decision you should request a larger sample of comments, look at commenter profiles (real follower counts, posting history, mutual interactions), comment diversity and repetition, like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and follower demographics. Given the limited sample, the comments provide weak positive signal but are not decisive for ad spend."
}
Text: ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 25,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji_reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Low-effort positive reaction / engagement signal (expresses approval or affection without substantive content)"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it is a heart emoji (❤️). That is a generic positive reaction that provides minimal information about follower quality or genuine interest. Such comments are commonly left by real followers as quick praise, but they are also frequently produced by engagement-bots or from mass-comment strategies — hence a moderate fakeness score with low confidence. From an advertising feasibility standpoint this single low-effort comment is insufficient to judge the influencer's audience quality or authentic engagement. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of recent comments, overall comment-to-follower ratio, distribution of comment types (questions, mentions, long-form testimonials), follower growth history, and account metadata (follower quality, demographics, suspicious spikes) before making a buying decision. Without that, treat the post’s engagement as inconclusive and proceed cautiously."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DG7qBPKKrvN
-
Comment ER: 0.04%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Single close-up frame shows a well-groomed appearance (neat hair, small earring, clear skin, natural makeup) and neutral, uncluttered background — signals consistent with middle to upper‑middle lifestyle. No strong luxury markers (brand logos, premium home details, high-end products or vehicles) are visible, so evidence is moderate."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "This is a static close-up selfie: subject is looking away from the camera, mouth is closed and there are no visible speaking cues. No reliable evidence of on‑camera speaking/eye contact in the provided frame."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 75,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Frame is tightly focused on the face/skin with a natural, skincare‑friendly look (clean skin, minimal makeup) which commonly aligns with beauty/self‑care content. However this is a single image without product usage or explicit captions, so association is plausible but not definitive."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No logos, packaging, retailer names, or promotional overlays for low‑cost retailers (Shein/Temu/AliExpress, etc.) are visible in the provided frame."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising or branded pillow imagery is visible in the frame."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content is present in the provided frame, so there is no evidence of mixed or inconsistent ad categories."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "No advertising or on‑screen promotional text is visible to evaluate authenticity. Because there is no ad evidence, authenticity cannot be assessed reliably — score reflects neutral/unknown with low confidence."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising elements, sponsor overlays, or product placements are visible in the frame, indicating advertising does not appear in the analyzed content."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "There are no captions, speech bubbles, or multi‑shot sequences in the provided frame to judge structure of argumentation or explanatory depth. Insufficient evidence to attribute structured verbal reasoning."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No textual or spoken content is present in the frame to evaluate the rarity, specificity, or technical depth of shared knowledge. Cannot infer knowledge level from a single portrait image."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Facial features and subtle signs of skin maturity suggest the subject is more likely in the 30s than early 20s, but the single image is not conclusive for precise age >35. Evidence is ambiguous."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No verbal content or written captions are available to evaluate clarity of reasoning, vocabulary, or analytical ability. Visual presentation appears thoughtful and composed, but this is an indirect and weak signal."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "There are no captions, statements, or clear recurring content patterns in the single frame to evidence stated principles, voiced convictions, or audience filtering. Image alone provides minimal basis to judge transmission of an 'own truth.'"
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Expression in the frame is calm and contemplative rather than overtly energetic or exuberant. Neutral/pleasant demeanor is visible, but there is no clear strong enthusiasm signal."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "Subject presents an appealing, relatable visual presence (eye contact absent but facial composition engaging). Charisma and ability to inspire cannot be reliably judged from one still image, so score is moderate with low confidence."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No professional credentials, clinical environment, tools, or on‑screen titles are visible to suggest expertise in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, plastic surgery or fashion. Absence of explicit evidence indicates no identifiable expert status."
}
}
Comments (10)
Text: Un día para reinvindicar nuestros derechos de igualdad en todos los ámbitos y ni un paso atrás !!💜💜💜
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 5,
"fakeness_confidence": 85,
"overall_score": 70,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Supportive / Solidarity",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express solidarity and support for equality/rights; emotional reinforcement of the post's message; increase visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is a clear supportive/activist message in Spanish: 'Un día para reivindicar nuestros derechos de igualdad en todos los ámbitos y ni un paso atrás !!💜💜💜'. It reads as organic — specific language, correct grammar (aside from a minor misspelling of 'reivindicar'), emotional emphasis and contextually relevant emojis. There are no signs of generic spam, promotional language, or copy-paste patterns in this isolated sample, so fakeness is assessed very low (5/100) with high confidence. However, this assessment is limited by the tiny sample size: one comment cannot establish the overall authenticity of the account's engagement. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single genuine-seeming comment is a positive indicator of authentic audience alignment with cause-driven content, but you should verify at scale by checking: commenter account age and activity, diversity of commenters, repetition of identical phrases across posts, like-to-comment ratios, comment timestamps, and presence of inorganic patterns. Based on this single comment, the post's comment authenticity and relevance to activism/solidarity content is promising (overall score 70/100) but confidence is moderate because broader comment and account-level analysis is needed to finalize an ad purchase decision."
}
Text: Preciosaaa 😍😍❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 65,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise (text + emojis)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/support; social validation to increase visibility and rapport with the influencer"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment provided: 'Preciosaaa 😍😍❤️❤️' — a short, enthusiastic compliment in Spanish with elongated spelling and multiple emojis. That style commonly comes from genuine followers/fans, but it is also a frequent form used by comment pods or purchased/generic engagement. With a single data point the evidence is limited: likelihood of fakeness is low-to-moderate (score 30) but confidence is only moderate (55%) because sample size is tiny and context (commenter profile, recurrence across posts) is unknown. Overall, the comments do not strongly indicate fake engagement but are insufficient to confirm a highly authentic, engaged audience for advertising. For an advertising purchase decision, request a larger sample of recent comments, commenter profile checks (activity, follower counts, content), and additional engagement metrics (likes, saves, reach) before committing."
}
Text: 😍😍👏👏
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/approval and boost visible engagement (social proof); low-information signal about genuine interest"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment provided (\"😍😍👏👏\") is an emoji-only positive reaction. These comments are common, low-effort, and provide little information about real user intent or purchase interest. Emoji-only responses can come from genuine followers, casual viewers, or automated/bot accounts; absent additional context (commenter account details, timing, volume and variety of other comments, like-to-comment ratio), this one item should be considered weak evidence of authentic, commercially relevant engagement. For advertising feasibility you should not rely on such comments alone — instead examine commenter profiles, diversity of comments (questions, substantive praise, personal stories), engagement rates relative to follower count, and recent posting patterns to assess real audience quality."
}
Text: Que guapísima🥰❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / generic praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment (simple engagement). May be genuine follower praise, casual fan comment, or low-effort bot/spam; primarily serves to boost visible engagement and social proof."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short compliment ('Que guapísima🥰❤️') is available. This is a common and low-information comment: it signals positive sentiment but gives little evidence about audience authenticity or engagement quality. Such comments are typical of genuine followers but are also easily produced by bots or engagement farms. Given the single data point, the fakeness estimate is moderate (35/100) with low-to-moderate confidence. For advertising buy decisions, this alone is insufficient: the comment diversity, commenter account quality, timing patterns, overall comment-to-like ratio, and follower authenticity should be reviewed. Current overall suitability for advertising based solely on this comment is low (30/100) with low confidence. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, examine commenter profiles for real accounts, check engagement consistency across posts, and compute engagement metrics (ER, growth spikes, follower quality) before purchasing ads."
}
Text: Feliz día amor 💜💜
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 75,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Personal / Affectionate",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express affection/support (likely friend, partner or close follower); increases visible engagement but not product-specific endorsement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Feliz día amor 💜💜\" (Spanish: \"Happy day, love\"). This is a short, affectionate message probably from a friend/partner or a close follower. It reads as genuine rather than templated spam or bot output, hence a low fakeness score. However, because the sample size is a single comment, conclusions about the account's overall comment authenticity and advertising value are very limited. An affectionate comment signals some real personal engagement but tells us nothing about audience relevance to a brand, comment diversity, or whether engagement is organic at scale. For ad-buy decisions you should examine a larger set of recent comments for: volume and consistency of engagement, proportion of product-related or specific praise, repeat commenters, unnatural repetition of phrases/emojis, follower quality, like-to-comment ratios, and timing patterns. Based on the single comment, the post shows minimal useful commercial engagement; therefore the overall suitability for advertising is low-to-moderate until more data are reviewed."
}
Text: 🙌🙌🙌 siempre
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic positive / emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Show simple support or approval; increase visible engagement (likes/comments) without adding substantive feedback"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment was provided: \"🙌🙌🙌 siempre\". This is a low-information, generic positive reaction common among genuine followers but also easily produced by bots, engagement pods, or paid commenters. Characteristics: emoji repetition and a one-word supportive remark ('siempre' = 'always') indicate positive sentiment but no product-specific interest, purchase intent, or detailed engagement. Given only one comment, signal is weak. I estimate a moderate-low probability of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 35) but with low confidence (30) because the sample is too small to identify patterns (repetition, identical phrasing across accounts, suspicious account metadata, timing clusters, follower-to-engagement ratios). For advertising feasibility, the available evidence is insufficient; score 45 reflects possible genuine engagement but not strong, high-quality interactions that indicate influence on purchasing. Confidence in that overall assessment is low (25). Recommendation: collect a larger sample of comments and metadata — number of unique commenters, comment diversity, timestamps, commenter account age/follower ratios, like-to-follower ratio, and frequency of generic comments — before making a buy decision. If many comments are similarly generic/emoji-only and come from low-quality accounts, treat engagement as likely inauthentic and reduce investment. If comments are varied, specific, and from established accounts, the influencer may be suitable for advertising."
}
Text: 💜💜💜
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 55,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji_positive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express affection/approval/support with low-effort engagement (three purple heart emojis). Commonly used to show liking without substantive feedback; can be genuine follower reaction or generic/bot engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three purple heart emojis. This is a low-information signal. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous — they indicate positive sentiment but lack context, specificity, or purchase intent. They are also commonly produced by engagement farms or bot accounts as lightweight interaction, so there is a moderate risk of inauthenticity. Given the very small sample, confidence is low. For advertising buy decisions this post’s comment evidence is weak: it neither demonstrates engaged, opinionated followers nor clear interest in promoted products. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts, language), look at comment diversity and timing, and compare comment-to-like ratios before using this influencer for targeted ad spend."
}
Text: Siéntete súper orgullosa! Feliz día a ti y a todas las mujeres 💜💜
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 12,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "supportive/celebratory",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express congratulations/positive reinforcement (personal encouragement), likely responding to a celebration or message aimed at women."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is a short, positive, natural-sounding message in Spanish: 'Siéntete súper orgullosa! Feliz día a ti y a todas las mujeres 💜💜'. It reads like genuine follower engagement (personal encouragement tied to a women's-day-style sentiment) and contains no promotional phrasing or repeated/bot-like patterns. Given only one comment, however, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience authenticity or scale. The low fakeness score reflects the personal tone and absence of red flags, but confidence is limited because we cannot analyze patterns (usernames, timestamps, repetition, language consistency, or volume). For advertising-feasibility decisions: this single genuine-seeming comment is a small positive signal but insufficient alone to justify spend. Recommend collecting a larger comment sample, engagement rate (likes/comments per follower), commenter profiles (real accounts vs. throwaway), timing patterns, and comparison across posts to raise confidence before purchasing ads or collaborations."
}
Text: Feliz día 🙏🏽
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Greeting / Generic positive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive engagement — friendly greeting and goodwill; likely to signal basic audience interaction or casual viewer reaction."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment provided, \"Feliz día 🙏🏽\", is a short, generic positive greeting. It appears genuine and non-promotional; there are no clear markers of automation (repeated phrases, links, irrelevant hashtags) or coordinated spam. However, one comment is an extremely small sample and gives very limited information about audience quality, engagement authenticity, or influencer relevance for advertising. The low fakeness score reflects that this specific comment is unlikely to be fake, but the confidence is moderate-to-low because a robust assessment requires many comments, patterns (timing, repetition), like/comment ratios, follower quality, and additional context (post content, language/audience match, account history). Recommendation: analyze a larger set of comments (dozens to hundreds), review commenter profiles for real activity, check engagement rates across posts, and look for signs of inorganic growth (sudden spikes, many generic comments, follower-to-engagement mismatch) before deciding on an ad purchase."
}
Text: Feliz día de la mujer
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic celebratory/greeting",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express goodwill/acknowledgement (e.g., 'Happy Women's Day') — lightweight engagement and social courtesy."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment ('Feliz día de la mujer') was provided. This is a short, generic congratulatory message commonly seen around International Women's Day and similar occasions. It is likely genuine or at worst a low-effort/templated comment rather than a clearly automated spam message — hence a low fakeness score — but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. For influencer advertising decisions this single comment indicates some follower alignment with occasion-based posts and basic engagement, but it does not demonstrate meaningful conversational engagement, purchase intent, or audience quality. Recommend a deeper audit: collect a larger sample of recent comments, check commenter account quality (age, followers, posting history), look for repeated phrases/links, examine like-to-comment ratio and timing patterns, and review follower demographics before making ad-buy decisions."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DFgAPKRqvMt
-
Comment ER: 0.04%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 75,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Visual signals suggest an above-average / premium lifestyle: private pool, glass/metal terrace railing overlooking the sea, palm trees and coastal sunset (villa-like setting). No explicit premium brand markers visible and a small negative detail (a yellow jerry can on the pool edge) prevents maximum score."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 100,
"Interpretation": "No person visible in the provided frame and no facial/eye-contact signals — no evidence the blogger speaks to camera in this frame."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No visible beauty or self-care products, devices, routines, or before/after imagery in the frame; nothing links the content to beauty/self-care from this visual."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No visible advertising or retailer logos (AliExpress, Shein, Temu, discount supermarket brands) in the image — no low-end retail ads detected."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No pillows or pillow advertising visible in the frame; therefore no pillow ads other than allowed Sleep & Glow."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content is present in the provided frame, so there is no evidence of inconsistent or mixed-category ads."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "No advertising or on-screen text to evaluate authenticity of sales messages. Median score assigned because the metric cannot be assessed from this single image (very low confidence)."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No ads visible in the analyzed frame; indicates advertising does not appear in this content sample."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "No speaking-to-camera, captions, or explanatory text in the frame to judge structured argumentation or reasoning."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "No visible instructional content, captions or technical detail in the frame — cannot detect knowledge transmission or depth."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 5,
"Interpretation": "No person is visible in the frame; age cannot be inferred from the image alone, so default midpoint with very low confidence."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 5,
"Interpretation": "No spoken content, written captions, or behavior visible to judge cognitive or communicative intelligence; neutral midpoint and very low confidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 5,
"Interpretation": "No first-person statements, captions, or repeated thematic content in the frame to evaluate stable principles, voice, or audience filtering; cannot assess."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "The scene is calm and aesthetically pleasant (sunset), but there are no facial expressions, gestures, or captions to measure enthusiasm — ambiguous signal, low confidence."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 5,
"Interpretation": "No person or delivery visible to evaluate ability to inspire or emotionally engage; no direct evidence in the frame."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No professional credentials, clinic/studio environment, or technical demonstration visible in the frame. Based on the image alone there is no evidence supporting expert status in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup, plastic surgery or fashion."
}
}
Comments (5)
Text: Precioso 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short positive compliment / reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express appreciation or admiration (engagement signal). Likely intended to praise the content and register positive sentiment; may serve to increase visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Precioso 😍\". This is a generic positive reaction that could come from a real follower, a casual viewer, or an automated/farmed account — the form (one word + emoji) is commonly seen in both genuine and low-effort bot comments. With only this data point there is low informational value for deciding advertising spend. The comment indicates positive sentiment but not meaningful, specific interest or purchase intent. Recommendation: do not base an ad-buy decision on this alone; analyze comment volume and variety across multiple posts, commenter account quality (profiles, activity, follower counts), comment timestamps, likes-to-comments ratio, and overall engagement rate before proceeding."
}
Text: Qué lujo Irene!!💙
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive compliment (personalized)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Praise/admiration to acknowledge the influencer and signal approval/engagement"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Qué lujo Irene!!💙\" is a short, positive, Spanish-language compliment that directly names the influencer and includes an emoji. Personalization (using the name) and lack of promotional language reduce but do not eliminate the likelihood of inauthenticity. With only one comment provided, assessment is very limited: this could be a genuine follower expressing admiration, a friendly interaction from another real account, or a low-effort comment from an engagement pod or bot. The moderate-low fakeness score (25) reflects the small personalization signal; the low confidence (40) reflects the extreme lack of contextual data (commenter profile, timing, comment volume, pattern across posts, follower-to-comment ratio, other comments). For advertising feasibility: current evidence is insufficient to judge audience quality—overall score 40 indicates marginal suitability pending more data. Recommended next checks before a purchase decision: inspect the commenter’s profile (age, follower count, posting history), examine a larger sample of recent comments for repetition/templated language, check likes on comments and comment timing patterns, and compute engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count) and audience demographics. Without those, do not rely on this single comment as evidence of authentic, engaged audience."
}
Text: Pero q. Bonito ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic short praise (positive + emoji)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express simple appreciation/admiration and signal engagement; low informational value for assessing genuine interest. Common from both real followers and automated/engagement‑pod accounts."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"Pero q. Bonito ❤️\" — a short, generic positive reaction with an emoji and no personalization. Such comments are ambiguous: they occur frequently from genuine followers but are also typical of bots or engagement pods because they provide positive sentiment without meaningful content. With this lone example there is insufficient evidence to confidently judge authenticity. For advertising-feasibility decisions this yields a weak signal: sparse, generic comments suggest low-quality public engagement and limited audience insight. Recommended next steps before purchase: review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and look for specific, contextual comments indicating real interest. If many comments are of this generic type, treat the audience engagement as potentially inflated and demand deeper proofs (story reach, saves, DMs, swipe-ups) or run a small test campaign."
}
Text: Que maravilla 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and positive sentiment; signals approval and provides social proof/engagement"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: 'Que maravilla 😍' (Spanish, 'What a wonder'). It is a generic positive reaction that functions as social proof but carries low informational value. Such brief praise can be genuine (a follower expressing admiration) or a stock/generic comment produced by engagement bots or low-effort accounts; with only one example the certainty is low. For advertising purchase decisions this single comment is insufficient to judge audience quality or authenticity. Recommendation: analyze a larger sample of recent comments, timing patterns, language mix, commenter account quality (follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, and overall engagement consistency before proceeding."
}
Text: 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express enthusiasm/approval; increase visible engagement. Could be genuine quick reaction from a follower or low-effort/bot engagement used to inflate metrics."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: four fire emojis (🔥🔥🔥🔥). This is an emoji-only positive reaction that conveys enthusiasm but carries very little informational value about audience intent, sentiment depth, or purchase interest. Emoji-only comments are common from real followers, fans, or casual viewers, but they are also frequently produced by engagement farms or bots because they are low-effort and safe. Given the limited data (one comment), the fakeness assessment is inherently uncertain—hence a moderate fakeness score and modest confidence. For advertising feasibility, this single emoji comment is weak evidence of meaningful, high-quality engagement; it neither supports nor strongly opposes investment. I recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments and other signals before deciding: inspect comment diversity (length, content, questions), account profiles of commenters (age, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns (many comments in short bursts), repetition of identical comments, the ratio of comments-to-follower count, likes on the post, and historical campaign performance. Those checks will materially improve confidence in authenticity and ad-buy decisions."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DEilkxOKARU
-
Comment ER: 0.16%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Visual cues (fur-trimmed puffer coat, styled hair, patterned scarf, neat makeup and groomed appearance, and what appears to be a scenic waterside/bridge background) lean toward an above-average / mid-to-premium lifestyle. No explicit luxury brands, vehicles, or interior markers are visible, so evidence is suggestive but not conclusive."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "No evidence of on-camera speaking: single still frame of a posed moment, no visible mouth movement or video speech cues. Cannot infer a talking-head format from this image."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 55,
"Confidence": 35,
"Interpretation": "The subject shows clear grooming: styled hair, visible makeup and well-kept skin—signals consistent with interest in beauty/self-care. However this is a single image without product use, routines, or recurring context, so association with a beauty-focused content identity is plausible but weakly supported."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No visible logos, on-screen text, or mentions of low-cost retailers (Shein, AliExpress, Temu, Lidl, Aldi, etc.) in the provided frame."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No pillow or pillow-brand advertising visible in the frame; nothing indicates Sleep & Glow or any other pillow promotion."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content is visible in the frame; by absence there is no evidence of inconsistent or heterogeneous ad categories. Confidence lowered because absence of ads limits assessment."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Unable to evaluate authenticity of advertising because there are no visible ad frames, captions, or product demonstrations to judge personal usage, context, or specificity. Neutral mid-score reflects lack of evidence."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising is present in the provided frame(s); therefore frequency within this sample is zero."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No speech, captions, or multi-frame narrative available to assess reasoning or argument structure. Very low score reflects lack of evidence rather than demonstrated poor structure."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 15,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No textual or spoken content is available to evaluate the rarity, depth, or professional level of knowledge. Image shows grooming but provides no instructional or nuanced informational signals."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 35,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "Visual appearance suggests an adult likely in late 20s to early 30s range; there is no strong visual evidence convincingly indicating age >35. High uncertainty from single black-and-white portrait."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No speech, captions, or demonstrable analytical content to judge cognitive/communicative intelligence. Neutral score reflects inability to infer from a single portrait; confidence is low."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No first-person text, stated principles, or value-driven messaging visible. Grooming and style may suggest value placed on self-care/appearance, but evidence is weak and indirect."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 75,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Facial expression shows a genuine smile and engaged demeanor (turned toward another person, relaxed posture), which visually signals positive energy and enthusiasm in this moment. Single-frame evidence supports moderate-to-high score with reasonable confidence."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "The subject appears warm and engaging in the image (open smile, eye line toward camera/scene), suggesting a degree of personal charisma. Assessment is tentative because charisma and ability to inspire are best judged across dynamic content and audience reaction, which are not available."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "No visible credentials, professional environment, medical/clinic setting, or demonstrable technical procedure in the frame to support identification as an expert in cosmetology, dermatology, plastic surgery, makeup artistry, or fashion. Evidence strongly points to no expert-status indicators."
}
}
Comments (15)
Text: 🩶🩶
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only / reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Quick positive reaction or acknowledgement. Low informational value; used to show appreciation/approval or to increase visible engagement without substantive feedback."
}
],
"interpretation": "Very small sample (a single comment consisting of two heart emojis). Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers who want to react quickly, but they are also characteristic of low-effort engagement and can be generated by bots/engagement pods. Because there is only one comment available, the signal is weak: authenticity is uncertain and behaviour cannot be reliably generalized. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment provides almost no evidence of audience intent, purchase interest, or meaningful engagement. Recommended next steps: sample a larger set of recent comments, check commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), look at like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns (many similar comments in short bursts), and presence of conversational or product-related comments. Based on the single emoji comment alone, I rate the comment-level fakeness as moderately low-to-moderate (40/100) with modest confidence (55/100), and advertising suitability as low (35/100) with limited confidence (45/100). Further data is required for a reliable buy/no-buy recommendation."
}
Text: Preciosa fotografía ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "generic positive compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/positive feedback; social validation that increases visible engagement and may boost reach. Also commonly used by bots or low-effort accounts, so could be genuine follower praise or generic engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Preciosa fotografía ❤️\" is a short, positive compliment with an emoji. Such comments typically serve to signal appreciation and provide social proof; they can be genuine from a follower who liked the image or formulaic/generic (and sometimes automated) because the phrasing is minimal and common. With only one comment and no contextual metadata (commenter profile, timing, volume of similar comments, likes on the comment, overall engagement rate), confidence in authenticity is limited. Fakeness is unlikely but possible (estimated 25%), and the assessment confidence is low-to-moderate (35%). For advertising feasibility, this single positive but generic comment is insufficient evidence of strong, authentic audience engagement. The overall suitability score is therefore moderate (45) with low confidence (30). Recommendations: review commenter profiles (age, follower count, posting history), check many comments for repeated generic phrasing, assess likes-to-followers and comments-to-followers ratios across multiple posts, and use pattern analysis or third-party tools to detect bot-like behavior before finalizing ad spend."
}
Text: Bonita
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 25,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Short positive praise ('Bonita') intended to show support/approval and generate superficial engagement (like/comment)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Dataset is extremely limited (single one-word comment). 'Bonita' is a generic, context-free compliment; such comments can be genuine from followers but are also commonly produced by engagement farms or bots. Given the lack of conversational content, profile metadata, timing, or multiple comments, I assess a moderate likelihood this is not strongly indicative of authentic, valuable engagement (fakeness score 60, confidence 45). For advertising feasibility: current comment evidence is weak — there is no sign of meaningful audience interaction, discussion, or user intent. Overall ad-suitability score is low (25) with low-to-moderate confidence. Recommended next steps before buying ads: collect more comments across several posts, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts (profile pictures, posts, follower counts, account age), check engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), look for repeating/generic comments across posts, analyze timing patterns, and run follower authenticity tools. Only proceed if a broader sample shows conversational, diverse, and organic-looking comments and reasonable engagement rates."
}
Text: Qué foto más bonita 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "positive engagement / social approval — short praise of the photo (emoji used to reinforce positive sentiment)"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short, generic comment is available: 'Qué foto más bonita 😍😍😍'. This is consistent with a typical follower compliment but is also the kind of brief, non-specific text frequently produced by bots or reciprocal-engagement accounts. There is no contextual signal (no tagging, no question, no mention of product/brand, no critique or detail) to indicate a strong, authentic relationship or deep engagement. Given the single data point, the fakeness assessment is tentative (moderate likelihood of being organic but non-negligible chance of being generic/fake). For an advertising purchase decision this sample is insufficient: it neither demonstrates sustained, specific audience interest nor provides proof of active, authentic engagement. Recommended next steps before buying ad space or collaborating: inspect the commenter(s) profile(s) for realism (posting history, follower/following ratio, avatar, bio), review the full set of recent comments for variety and depth, calculate post engagement rate (likes + comments relative to follower count), and check for patterns of repetitive/generic comments across multiple posts."
}
Text: Que guapisima❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment / praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive reinforcement — short praise of appearance, signaling approval/affection (engagement support)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: 'Que guapisima❤️' — a short, generic compliment in Spanish with an emoji. Such comments are common from genuine followers, friends, or fans, but they are also the type of brief text used by bots, engagement pods, or low-effort commenters. Given the lone example, the likeliest interpretation is a genuine supportive follower comment, especially if the influencer's audience is Spanish-speaking. However, confidence is limited because a single, generic comment provides little signal: there is no commenter profile data, timing, repetition pattern, or additional comments to corroborate authenticity. For advertising feasibility, this sample is inconclusive — it neither confirms high-quality organic engagement nor proves widespread fake interaction. Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of recent comments across posts (look for repetition, identical phrasing, emoji patterns), inspect commenter profiles (follower counts, avatars, posting history), check comment timestamps for burst patterns, and calculate engagement metrics (comments-to-followers ratio, comment diversity). Based on that deeper audit you can assign a more reliable authenticity score and decide on ad purchase suitability."
}
Text: ❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 65,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "generic_positive_emoji",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express a positive reaction/support with low-effort engagement (hearts indicate approval or affection). Could be genuine follower appreciation or habitual/bot activity that pads engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of three heart emojis. This is a low-information signal: on one hand hearts are normal genuine reactions from followers; on the other hand short emoji-only comments are a common pattern for automated/bulk engagement and fake comment packs. Given lack of contextual data (commenter account age, follower count, comment timing, frequency of similar comments, like-to-comment ratio, presence of substantive replies or other varied comments), I assess the comment as more likely low-effort rather than a strong indicator of an engaged, authentic audience. For advertising feasibility, this evidence is weak and leans negative: one generic emoji does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest, conversation, or influence. Recommended next steps before a purchase decision: examine a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter profiles for authenticity (profile picture, posting history, follower-following ratio, recent activity), check engagement rate relative to follower count, and look for substantive comments (questions, tagged friends, personal stories) that indicate real audience interaction."
}
Text: Pues me encanta !
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express appreciation for the content (short praise), likely intended to boost perceived popularity and engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Pues me encanta !\" is a brief, positive/complimentary remark. It signals favorable sentiment but is generic and non-specific (no details about why they like the post), which is common both for casual genuine followers and for low-effort bot or engagement-farming accounts. With only this one comment and no metadata (commenter profile, timestamp, likes on the comment, comment frequency, or other comments) the fakeness assessment is tentative: modest likelihood of being organic but also compatible with automated or low-effort engagement. For advertising feasibility this comment alone is weak evidence of an engaged, high-value audience. I recommend further checks before buying ads: overall comment volume and diversity, comment-to-follower ratio, commenter account quality (activity, followers, profile), like counts and story interactions, presence of specific, conversational comments and replies, and historical campaign performance. Based on the single generic positive comment, treat engagement as uncertain and perform deeper audit before committing to ad spend."
}
Text: Que bien sienta el amor ❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive / Affectionate (emoji)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express emotional support/affection for the post; signals engagement and provides social proof (likes/comments), possibly intended to boost visibility or reinforce the influencer's message."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: 'Que bien sienta el amor ❤️❤️' (How good love feels). It is a short, positive, emotionally expressive message with emojis. Such comments typically come from genuine followers showing support or from casual engagement pods; there are no obvious bot markers (no links, no repeated tokens, natural phrasing and emojis). However, with just one sample the assessment is weak: the comment could be authentic, but it could also be a generic engagement comment used repeatedly across posts. For advertising feasibility: this single positive comment is a mild positive signal (shows at least some audience affection and potential alignment with lifestyle/relationship content), but it is insufficient to judge overall audience quality or engagement authenticity. Recommended next steps before buying advertising: analyze a larger set of comments across multiple posts, check commenter profiles for real follower signals (profile pictures, posting history, follower counts), measure comment-to-like ratio and timing patterns, look for repeated identical comments across posts, and calculate engagement rate relative to follower count."
}
Text: Ohhh pero q foto ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic positive compliment with emojis",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Show approval / social validation. Short praise intended to boost visible engagement; low informational or conversational value."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment — \"Ohhh pero q foto ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️\" — is a brief, enthusiastic compliment with multiple heart emojis. This is a common low-effort engagement type: it signals positive reaction but provides no detail about why the content resonated. Such comments can be genuine from casual followers but are also the type often produced by bots, paid commenters, or disengaged followers (because they're short, generic, and reusable across posts). Given only one comment, authenticity cannot be determined reliably. For advertising decisions this comment alone is a weak signal: it contributes social proof but not evidence of a highly engaged, relevant audience (no questions, no product-related interest, no user experience). Recommendation: review a larger sample of comments, profile the commenters (accounts' activity, follower/following ratios, comment diversity), and check like-to-comment ratios and comment timestamps before making a purchase decision."
}
Text: 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji_reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/positive reaction; low-effort engagement that boosts visible engagement but provides no substantive endorsement. Can be genuine fan activity or generic/bot-driven interaction."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is provided: three 'heart-eyes' emojis. This indicates positive sentiment but is low information and low-effort. Emoji-only comments are commonly posted by real followers but are also frequently produced by bots or mass-engagement services, so there is a moderate likelihood of inauthenticity (fakeness score 60) with limited confidence. For advertising feasibility this comment is weak evidence of meaningful audience engagement or purchase intent; it neither demonstrates product interest nor prompts conversation. Overall suitability for ad spend is low-to-moderate (score 35) based on this single data point. Recommended next steps before any purchase decision: collect a larger sample of comments across multiple posts; inspect commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history); measure like-to-comment ratio and comment diversity (questions, tagged friends, testimonials); check for repeated identical comments and timing patterns. With fuller data we can give a higher-confidence assessment."
}
Text: 😍😍😍😍😍 Es un fotón
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "short positive praise (emoji + short phrase)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express approval/admiration; signals engagement but provides low contextual/detail value"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"😍😍😍😍😍 Es un fotón\" (Spanish for \"It's a great photo\" with multiple heart/heart-eyes emojis). This is a generic, positive reaction that indicates some level of audience approval but carries little information about genuine interest, relationship to the creator, or purchase intent. The heavy use of emojis and a short, non-personalized phrase are common in both authentic quick-reacting followers and in low-effort bot/batch comments, so the fakeness assessment is cautious (low-to-moderate fakeness risk).\n\nBecause the sample is just a single, generic comment, confidence in any judgment is limited. For an advertising purchase decision you should not rely on this alone. Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of recent comments, check for repeated/similar comments across posts (bot pattern), examine commenter profiles for real accounts (history, followers, posts), compare comment timestamps to detect spikes, and evaluate likes-to-comments ratio and follower quality. Based on the single comment, engagement signal is weak — useful as a small positive indicator but insufficient to conclude strong authentic audience engagement."
}
Text: Eres más bonita!!! Vaya pareja bonita hacéis! ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 60,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Supportive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration for the person and the couple; signal social approval and encourage the poster (engagement to boost visibility)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is a short, positive compliment in Spanish: \"Eres más bonita!!! Vaya pareja bonita hacéis! ❤️\". Features suggesting this is likely genuine: natural phrasing, language-specific wording, punctuation and emoji use, and a personal reference to the couple rather than a generic sales line. Features limiting certainty: only one comment provided and no metadata (username, follower relationship, timing, repetition patterns). There remains a modest chance this could be from a friend, follower, or small engagement group (pods) rather than an organic stranger; generic compliments are also sometimes used by low-effort bot accounts but this particular wording leans toward human. Given the single data point, fakeness is assessed low (15/100) with moderate confidence (60/100). For influencer-ad-feasibility, this single supportive comment is a small positive signal but insufficient by itself to conclude authentic, broad engagement; I rate overall at 60/100 with moderate-low confidence (50/100). Recommended next steps: review commenter profile (age, activity, follower/following ratio), check other comments for repeating wording or patterns, examine comment timestamps and replies, and analyze a larger sample of posts/comments to determine organic reach and audience quality before purchasing advertising."
}
Text: 💛💛💛
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Simple expression of appreciation or support; increases visible engagement but carries no substantive feedback or purchase intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists of three yellow heart emojis. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers as lightweight support, but they are also frequently generated by bots/accounts used to inflate engagement. With a single short reaction there is insufficient signal to judge audience quality. For advertising decisions, this comment provides weak evidence of meaningful, purchase-ready engagement. Recommended next steps: review commenter profile(s) for authenticity (age, follower count, posting history), examine full comment set for repetition or identical emoji patterns, check comment timing distribution, overall engagement rate relative to follower count, and look for substantive comments or conversations. Until those checks are performed, treat this post's comments as inconclusive and do not rely on them as proof of a highly engaged, conversion-ready audience."
}
Text: Me encanta, es súper bonita 👏
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment / positive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express praise/liking (boost visible engagement); no product detail or purchase intent; likely intended to show appreciation."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single short comment \"Me encanta, es súper bonita 👏\" is positive but low-information. It reads as a generic compliment — plausible as a genuine follower reaction but also consistent with mass-generic engagement patterns used by bots or engagement pods. Because there's only one comment, sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about audience quality or authenticity. For advertising feasibility this is weak evidence of real, motivated engagement: it increases visible engagement but does not indicate product interest, trust, or influence. Recommendation: review a larger set of comments across multiple recent posts, inspect commenter profiles (age, activity, follower/following ratios, language consistency), check overall engagement rate vs follower count, and look for product-specific, detailed, or conversation-driving comments before committing to ad spend."
}
Text: ❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 45,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Simple positive engagement / social approval. Low-effort support that boosts visible engagement but conveys no substantive feedback. Could be from a genuine follower, a casual viewer, or an automated/paid commenter."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: two heart emojis (\"❤️❤️\"). Emoji-only comments are common and increase apparent engagement but carry little informational value about audience quality or genuine interest in promoted products. With a single low-effort comment it is not possible to determine whether engagement is organic or inorganic — possibilities include a real fan, a casual passerby, an incentivized follower, or an automated/bought comment. For advertising feasibility this single comment is neutral: it slightly helps surface metrics but does not demonstrate meaningful audience intent, purchase interest, or audience diversity. Recommendation: inspect a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, examine commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting behavior), check like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and audience demographics before deciding on ad spend."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DEOE7jTqvZg
-
Comment ER: 0.05%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 65,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Image shows a group traveling in a historic European piazza (architecture and large open square consistent with central Italy/Tuscany). Clothing and accessories (coats, scarves, sunglasses) look neat and mid-to-premium rather than visibly low-cost; presence of international travel is a positive marker for above-average income. No explicit luxury brand cues are visible, so score is moderate and confidence is medium."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "Single group photo with no individual speaking to camera; no visible talking-head framing, eye-contact-to-lens speech, or mouth movement consistent with speaking. High confidence because only still photo frames are available."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "No visible beauty/self-care props or routines (no skincare packaging, devices, masks, tools or staged routine shots). Personal grooming appears normal, but there is insufficient repeated content evidence to associate the creator with beauty/self-care as a stable theme."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No visible advertising or logos for low-cost retailers (AliExpress, Shein, Temu, Lidl, Aldi etc.) appear in the provided frame; street scene and people-only composition show no retail promo."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No visible pillow advertising or product placement in the provided frame. Sleep & Glow or other pillow brands are not present."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertisements or promoted products are visible in the provided frames, so there is no evidence of inconsistent advertising categories."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "Not applicable in practice because no advertising frames are present. Based on the available image, there is no sign of staged or scripted ad content to evaluate; therefore treated as absent (high score for 'no inauthentic advertising evidence')."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising elements are present in the provided frame(s); thus frequency of advertising within the analyzed content is zero."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "No speaking / caption / stepwise explanations are visible in the frames. Unable to assess presence of structured argumentation from a single travel/group photo; neutral score with low confidence due to lack of evidence."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "No on-screen explanatory text, demonstrations, or professional indicators are visible to evaluate knowledge depth. Neutral midscore with low confidence because visual evidence is insufficient."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "The group contains multiple adults, some appearing middle-aged, but the identity of the 'blogger' is not specified in the frame. Visual cues suggest several people could be over 35, but without knowing which person is the blogger, this is uncertain."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "Intelligence as cognitive/communicative ability cannot be inferred from a single group travel photo. No speech, captions, or reasoning visible. Neutral score with very low confidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "Values (principles/voice/filter) require repeated content or explicit statements. The photo implies travel and family/social connection, but this is insufficient to robustly infer consistent personal-value messaging. Low confidence."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Most people in the photo are smiling or appear relaxed, indicating some positive energy in this moment. However, a single posed group photo is a limited signal for consistent enthusiasm; moderate score and medium–low confidence."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Charisma and ability to inspire are best judged via dynamic video, speech, or audience reaction; a static group photo does not provide clear evidence. Neutral score with low confidence."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No visible professional credentials, clinical or studio environment, or specialist tools related to cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, plastic surgery, or fashion. High confidence because the frame shows a public travel scene without expert indicators."
}
}
Comments (8)
Text: A mi también me pasa! Ais feliz año preciosa ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 70,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Supportive/Relatable follower comment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express empathy/relatability and send greetings; emotional support and engagement (no promotional intent)"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('A mi también me pasa! Ais feliz año preciosa ❤️') reads as organic and supportive: natural Spanish phrasing, an emotional interjection ('Ais'), a term of endearment ('preciosa') and an emoji. Purpose is to relate to the creator and send New Year wishes rather than to promote or solicit. This suggests at least some genuine follower engagement, but a single comment is insufficient to assess overall audience authenticity or commercial value. For advertising decisions, evaluate a larger sample: comment volume, diversity, like-to-comment ratio, timestamps, follower quality, and presence of repetitive/generic comments. Based on this sample alone, low probability of fakeness but only moderate-to-low confidence in overall ad-feasibility assessment."
}
Text: El miedo nos recuerda que estamos donde nos sentimos bien. Y eso, hay que valorarlo. Por ello, abraza el miedo y agradécele que te ponga en alerta ya que te recuerda que estás donde es.
Es un sentimiento tan válido como cualquiera.
Y lo de pensar más de la cuenta… nada, aquí otra con humito por las orejas.
😘😘😘
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 12,
"fakeness_confidence": 88,
"overall_score": 68,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "supportive / personal reflection",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express empathy, relate a personal feeling to the post, and reinforce the creator's message; serves to build rapport and authentic engagement rather than to promote or spam."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is a multi-sentence, on-topic, reflective response in Spanish that thanks and expands on the post's sentiment, uses natural phrasing and emojis, and contains no links or generic marketing language. These features point to a genuine user reaction rather than a bot or spam comment. However, this is only one comment — a small sample — so while the likelihood of this comment being fake is low (fakeness_score 12, confidence 88), conclusions about the overall audience quality are limited. For advertising decisions, this comment is a positive signal of engaged, relevant followers, but you should review a larger set of comments (variety over time), commenter profiles (authentic follower accounts vs. disposable/bot accounts), like-to-comment ratios, and growth/timing patterns before finalizing a purchase. Overall assessment: promising but requires more data (overall_score 68, confidence 60)."
}
Text: De donde es el pañuelo o bufanda que llevas. Me gusta mucho pero no sé cómo buscarlo??
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 5,
"fakeness_confidence": 75,
"overall_score": 70,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Product inquiry / purchase intent",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "User asks where the scarf/bandana is from; expresses liking and inability to find it — indicates genuine interest and potential buying intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "This single comment appears genuine and organic: it’s a specific question in natural Spanish asking where the scarf/blanket shown comes from and expressing desire to find it. It lacks hallmarks of bot/spam comments (no generic praise, no emojis repeated, no commercial links or promotional language). Fakeness is low (score 5) with moderate-high confidence because the language and intent are specific. However, this is only one data point — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For ad-buy decisions, this comment is a positive sign (direct product interest), but you should review a larger set of comments and other engagement metrics (comment-to-like ratio, commenter account credibility, timing patterns, repeat identical comments) before finalizing. Recommended next steps: check the commenter’s profile for account age, follower count and posting history; look for multiple similar inquiries across posts (could indicate real interest or a coordinated template); track conversion after replying with purchase info to measure responsiveness."
}
Text: Creo que eso nos pasa a todos los que pensamos demasiado. Un beso fuerte y disfruta
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "empathetic/supportive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "emotional support and personal engagement (expresses shared feeling, offers affection and encouragement)"
}
],
"interpretation": "There is only one comment available: \"Creo que eso nos pasa a todos los que pensamos demasiado. Un beso fuerte y disfruta.\" Linguistic cues (natural phrasing, personal tone, affectionate sign-off) indicate the comment is likely genuine rather than bot-generated or generic promotional text. With a single, solitary comment there is insufficient evidence to judge overall audience authenticity, engagement patterns, or whether the account's comments are generally organic. For influencer ad-buy decisions this single comment is a weak positive signal (real engagement) but far from enough: recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (real accounts vs. newly created or botlike), comment diversity, like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and audience demographics before deciding. Current assessment: low probability of fake comments in this sample, but low confidence overall due to very small sample size."
}
Text: Eres un encanto Irene, un fuerte abrazo y feliz año ❤️ El miedo forma parte de la vida, así aprendemos a valorar lo que tenemos, a esforzarnos y superarnos en nuestro día a día…hay que mirar el miedo de frente…poco a poco se consigue💪💪💪🤗
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 85,
"overall_score": 65,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "supportive / personal",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express emotional support, encouragement, and a holiday greeting; strengthen personal/parasocial relationship with the influencer."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is long, specific, uses the influencer's name and natural phrasing in Spanish, and offers encouragement and a New Year greeting — characteristics consistent with a genuine follower or a personal acquaintance rather than a generic bot or paid promotional comment. Fakeness is therefore low (estimated ~10/100) with fairly high confidence given the language and personalization. For advertising feasibility this is a mildly positive signal: it demonstrates at least some authentic, emotionally engaged audience presence. However, this assessment is based on a single comment only and is limited. To make a reliable decision about purchasing advertising space on this influencer's profile, analyze a larger sample of recent comments, commenter profiles (real-looking accounts, follower counts, comment diversity), engagement rate relative to follower count, frequency of similar supportive comments, presence of spammy/generic replies, and any sudden spikes in activity that could indicate purchased engagement. Based on this single comment the profile looks promising but inconclusive, so I give an overall suitability score of 65/100 with moderate confidence."
}
Text: El miedo supera con amor amiga ✨🤎🌱🌷
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 75,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Supportive / Encouraging",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express empathy and emotional support to the poster; strengthen personal/community connection rather than promote or drive traffic."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment, \"El miedo supera con amor amiga ✨🤎🌱🌷\", is a short, personalized supportive message in Spanish using emojis. It reads as genuine encouragement from a follower or friend rather than a generic promotional or bot-like message. Linguistic cues (natural phrasing, direct address 'amiga') and the absence of overt marketing language lower the likelihood of fakery. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment is mildly positive evidence of a caring, engaged audience but is insufficient alone. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments for repetition patterns, comment diversity, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), time distribution of comments, and like-to-comment ratios to better judge genuine engagement and bot activity before purchasing ads or partnering."
}
Text: Feliz año guapisima. Miles de bendiciones ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 60,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "personal_greeting_praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express goodwill and affection (New Year greeting + compliment) — organic engagement from a follower or acquaintance."
},
{
"type": "generic_or_bot_like_comment",
"count": 0,
"purpose": "Short generic comments often used by bots/engagement pods (not observed here)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment provided ('Feliz año guapisima. Miles de bendiciones ❤️') reads as a genuine personal greeting: it contains a direct compliment, a culturally appropriate New Year wish, and an emoji, with no links, tags or promotional language. That profile suggests low likelihood of being fake (fakeness score 15), but confidence is moderate only because this analysis is based on one comment. For advertising feasibility: this comment is a positive signal (shows at least some real follower interaction), but it is insufficient to judge overall community quality or engagement authenticity. Before purchasing advertising, request more data: a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, commenter account quality (age, follower counts, posting history), comment timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and prevalence of generic comments. With the current limited evidence I rate the post/comments as moderately favorable for ads (overall_score 60) but with only moderate-to-low confidence."
}
Text: Una combi que no falla 😍 sin duda la mejor!!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic positive/compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express praise and social support; increase visible engagement/social proof"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is a short, enthusiastic compliment in Spanish with an emoji and no specific detail (“Una combi que no falla 😍 sin duda la mejor!!”). This pattern is common for genuine fans but also for low-effort engagement (bots or paid commenters) because it lacks personalised detail or a reference to a personal experience. Given only one comment, signal is weak: I assign a moderate fakeness likelihood (40/100) with moderate uncertainty. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment alone is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter profile (age, follower count, posting history), check comment diversity across recent posts, look for repeated phrases across multiple comments/posts, measure likes-to-comments ratio and comment timing. If multiple comments are similarly generic, raise the fakeness score and reduce confidence in organic engagement; if many comments are specific and varied, raise the overall suitability score for ad purchase."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/C-YEFopAz5S
-
Comment ER: 0.03%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Scene shows a mid-range cafe with leather chairs, a staffed bar, chalkboard menu and a plated breakfast with cappuccino — signals of a comfortable, above-basic lifestyle but not clear European luxury. Clothing and grooming look neat and intentional. No clear premium-brand products, luxury decor or high-end travel cues are visible, so I rate moderate‑above average."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Single still image: subject looks at the camera and smiles, but there is no video/audio or visible speaking action. The visual could be from a talking-head shot, but there is no direct evidence of on-camera speech or explanatory delivery."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 45,
"Interpretation": "The creator appears well groomed (styled hair, makeup) and the setting suggests lifestyle/self-care (leisure breakfast), which loosely aligns with beauty/self-care. However, there are no visible skincare products, devices, multi‑step routines, or explicit beauty-related props in the frames to strongly confirm a beauty‑focused content identity."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No visible advertising or logos from low-cost retailers (Shein, AliExpress, Temu, Lidl, Aldi etc.) are present in the provided frame(s)."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising or pillow branding is visible in the frame; Sleep & Glow is not shown either."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content appears in the frames, so there is no sign of mixed or inconsistent ad categories — the set is ad‑free in the provided image."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Unable to evaluate authenticity of sales messaging: there are no readable captions, on-screen ad frames or demonstrative product usage in the image. Neutral mid score reflects absence of evidence to judge trustworthiness of any ads."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No advertising frames or branded promo content are visible in the provided material, indicating no advertising frequency in this sample."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "No speech, captions, or multi-step instructional visuals are present to evaluate argument structure, cause–effect reasoning, or examples. Cannot infer structured thinking from a single photograph."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "There is no visible evidence of transmitted knowledge (no captions, technical props, or explanatory text). Unable to assess diffusion level or novelty of content from the frame."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Visual appearance suggests the subject may be in young adulthood to early mid‑30s, but age estimation from a single image is unreliable. I lean toward under‑35, so low score for >35, with low confidence."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "No speech or written content to evaluate verbal clarity, reasoning or analytical ability. Facial expression and composure are present but are insufficient indicators of cognitive/communicative intelligence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "No textual or spoken content shows stated principles, first‑person value statements, or an expressed worldview. Photo alone does not demonstrate the 'own truth' pillars."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Subject displays a warm, open smile and relaxed posture at a social meal — visual cues of positive energy and pleasant affect. This conveys moderate‑high enthusiasm from the still image, though dynamic vocal cues are absent."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 65,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Direct eye contact with the camera, an engaging smile and approachable body language suggest personal warmth and modest charismatic presence in the frame. Without video/speech the assessment remains moderately confident."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No visible professional credentials, clinical/studio environment, explanatory on-screen text or specialized tools that would indicate expertise in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, plastic surgery or fashion. No evidence supports expert status."
}
}
Comments (8)
Text: Guapísima ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 60,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment (generic)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Positive feedback / social approval — short praise likely meant to show admiration and increase visible engagement"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Guapísima ❤️\" (a brief Spanish compliment + heart). This is a common, low-effort positive comment that can come from a genuine follower, an engagement pod member, or a low-quality bot. Given its brevity and generic nature it does not strongly indicate either authentic community interaction or clearly fraudulent behavior on its own. Fakeness estimate is low-to-moderate (25/100) because the text is natural and context-appropriate, but confidence is limited because there's only one data point.\n\nFor advertising-feasibility: this single comment is mildly positive social proof but insufficient to judge the influencer's real engagement quality. The overall suitability score (60/100) reflects that the comment neither raises major red flags nor provides strong evidence of authentic, high-value engagement. Recommended next checks before buying ads: examine multiple posts' comments for diversity and specificity, inspect commenters' profiles (followers, posting history, avatars), check comment timing patterns, assess like-to-comment ratio, and look for repeated, identical comments across posts. These steps will raise confidence in the authenticity assessment."
}
Text: Lo mejor de los viajes 😂
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Authentic positive/engagement (short reaction with emoji)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express enjoyment/humor, show approval and social engagement; lightweight endorsement that increases visibility."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Lo mejor de los viajes 😂' is a short, colloquial Spanish reaction with an emoji, consistent with an authentic follower expressing amusement or endorsement of the post. It contains no promotional language, tags, or repeated patterns typical of bots or spam. Short generic comments can sometimes be automated, but this example reads natural and context-driven. Confidence in the fakeness assessment is moderate because only one comment is provided. For ad-buy decisions this data point is weak: positive but minimal engagement. Recommend expanding analysis to include total comment volume, like-to-comment ratio, commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, activity), comment timestamps, and patterns across multiple posts before making a purchasing decision."
}
Text: ❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 55,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji_reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "express positive sentiment/affection and simple engagement; low informational value and easily produced by both real users and automated/farm accounts"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is present and it consists of two heart emojis. This signals positive sentiment but provides no substantive feedback, demographic signal, or evidence of user intent. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers but are also trivial for bots or engagement farms to generate, so the probability of inauthenticity is non-negligible. With this single data point, the comment section offers little support for ad-buy decisions: it neither demonstrates a diverse, engaged audience nor reveals real interest in the content or product. Recommendation: request more comment samples, examine commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), overall engagement rate vs. follower count, timing patterns, and comment variety before concluding. Current evidence suggests caution for advertising spend."
}
Text: Di que sí jeje guapa
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Supportive/Complimentary",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Praise/encouragement — expresses affection or approval (e.g., 'guapa'), likely to build rapport and signal a positive reaction to the post; may also aim to prompt further interaction (light conversational engagement)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Di que sí jeje guapa' (Spanish; roughly 'Say yes hehe beautiful'). This is a short, informal, friendly/complimentary message consistent with a genuine follower, friend, or engaged fan. The use of 'jeje' and 'guapa' suggests casual familiarity rather than generic bot-like phrasing. However, the sample size is extremely small (n=1), so conclusions are limited. The low volume prevents reliable judgment of overall audience quality, diversity, or authentic engagement. For advertising feasibility, this single positive comment is insufficient evidence of strong, active, or authentic community engagement — recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments, likes-to-followers ratio, comment diversity, timing patterns, and follower account quality before making a purchase decision."
}
Text: Te veo guapa guapa 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 60,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express positive sentiment about the influencer's appearance; simple engagement to show support or admiration."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Te veo guapa guapa 😍😍') is a short, positive compliment with emoji. This looks like typical organic follower engagement (fan/friend) rather than obvious spam or promotional content. However, a single, isolated comment is very limited evidence: it neither confirms broad genuine engagement nor indicates coordinated/fake activity. The relatively informal phrasing and emojis lean toward authenticity, so the assessed fakeness is low-to-moderate (25) but with only moderate confidence because there is only one comment to analyze. For advertising decisions, this single positive comment is a small favorable signal but insufficient on its own: evaluate commenter account quality, volume and variety of comments across posts, like-to-follower ratio, and timing patterns before concluding ad purchase feasibility."
}
Text: Jajajaa disfrutad pareja
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 70,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "casual positive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express amusement and encouragement to the poster (social support / friendly interaction), likely from a follower or acquaintance."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Jajajaa disfrutad pareja\" is informal, in Spanish, and reads as a genuine, context-specific reaction (laughter + encouragement to the couple). Its phrasing is natural and not promotional or generic, which lowers the likelihood of it being a bot or bought engagement. However, this is only one data point — it cannot reliably indicate overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising purchase decisions, use this as a mildly positive signal (real follower tone) but request a larger sample: distribution of comment types, repetition of phrases, comment-to-like ratio, timing patterns, follower account quality, and audience demographics. Given the limited evidence, the overall recommendation is cautious: the comment is consistent with real engagement but is insufficient alone to confirm influencer credibility for ads. Further comment sampling and account-level metrics are necessary before committing to purchase."
}
Text: Guapa 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment / emoji",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Simple positive engagement: praise/approval likely intended to show appreciation or boost perceived popularity. Low-effort interaction (single word + emoji)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is provided: \"Guapa 😍\". This is a short, generic positive comment common among real followers, casual acquaintances, and automated/bot accounts alike. Its low information content means it neither strongly supports nor refutes authenticity. Fakeness risk is moderate because generic single-word compliments are often used by engagement farms and bots, but they are also used by genuine followers. Confidence in this assessment is limited by the absence of contextual data (commenter profile, account age, follower overlap, timing, repetition across posts, likes on the comment, and the broader comment distribution). For a reliable advertising feasibility decision, analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter accounts (bios, activity, follower counts), check comment diversity, time patterns, and engagement-rate metrics."
}
Text: Guapaaa😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 25,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express praise/attraction and show support; increases visible engagement and social proof"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Guapaaa😍' is a short, positive compliment with an elongated spelling and an emoji. That pattern is common among genuine followers (informal, affectionate language) but is also a frequently used generic phrase by bots or low-effort accounts. Given only one comment, there is very limited signal: the content leans slightly toward authentic fan engagement due to the personalized elongation ('Guapaaa') and emoji, but it could equally be a generic/templated reaction. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment alone is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition of identical phrases, check commenter profiles (age, activity, profile picture, follower counts), compare likes-to-comments ratio, and look for patterns of suspicious behavior (many comments from accounts with few posts or default avatars). With current data, treat audience authenticity as uncertain and gather more comments and account-level metrics before committing to purchase."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/C-NWqZROh_p
-
Comment ER: 0.03%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 45,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Image shows a well-kept lawn, a ceramic mug and a manicured hand — subtle mid‑level lifestyle cues. No clear premium brands, vehicle, travel or interior signals are visible, so evidence for a 'European premium / luxury' lifestyle is weak."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No face or person speaking on camera is visible in the frame; this is a still photo of a hand holding a mug, so 'talking head' presence is absent."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 15,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Only indirect cue is a neat manicure on the visible hand. No skincare, cosmetics, beauty devices, masks, or routines are visible, so alignment with beauty/self‑care content is minimal based on the available frame."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No visible logos, product packaging, or retailer advertising (AliExpress/Shein/Temu/Aldi/Lidl etc.) appear in the frame."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No pillows or pillow advertising are visible in the provided frame; therefore the constraint is satisfied."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content is present in the frame, so there is no inconsistent mix of unrelated ad categories to evaluate."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No advertising material or promotional text is visible to assess authenticity. Absence of ads implies no evidence of inauthentic scripted sales in these frames."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "There is no visible advertising content in the provided frame."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No speech, captions, or explanatory text are present in the frames to evaluate whether the creator presents structured arguments or reasoning."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No instructional or informational content, captions, or specialist indicators are visible; therefore there is no evidence of transmitted knowledge depth in these frames."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Only a hand is visible. Manicure and skin appearance do not provide reliable age information; age cannot be inferred from this frame with confidence."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No speech, captions, or reasoning are visible to judge cognitive or communicative intelligence; neutral mid score assigned with low confidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "A calm outdoor morning with coffee and a manicure could hint at personal values like self‑care or slow living, but this is speculative from a single frame and therefore low confidence."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Single still image provides no reliable cues (facial expression, vocal tone) about enthusiasm or positive energy; neutral score with low confidence."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No interpersonal communication or expressive performance is visible to evaluate charisma; neutral placeholder score with low confidence."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No professional credentials, clinical or studio environment, specialist tools, or explanatory content are visible to indicate expertise in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup, surgery or fashion."
}
}
Comments (7)
Text: 😍😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji-positive (😍)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express approval/admiration; low-effort engagement providing social proof but no topical insight. Such comments can be genuine fan reactions or automated/bought engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The available sample is a single emoji-only comment (four '😍'). Emoji reactions convey positive sentiment but carry very low informational value about genuine interest or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are common in both authentic quick reactions and in low-cost engagement farms or bot activity, so they are moderately suspicious in isolation. Given only one comment, the dataset is insufficient to judge overall comment authenticity or the influencer's real engagement quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this evidence is weak: score is low because comments lack substance, diversity, and verifiable user signals. Recommendations: (1) Collect more comments and commenter profiles (look for repeated short comments, account age, follower/following ratios, avatar and bio completeness). (2) Check overall engagement rate (likes vs. followers), comment diversity, reply threads, and time distribution. (3) Spot-check commenters for suspicious patterns (many similar emoji/comments across posts). (4) Request the influencer's media kit and past campaign case studies or run a small paid test to measure real conversions. Based on the single emoji comment, do not rely on this post's comments alone to approve ad spend."
}
Text: Disfruta mucho 👏👏👏
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "generic positive / engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Short supportive reaction to the post (congratulation/encouragement); primarily to signal approval and boost visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short, non-specific comment ('Disfruta mucho 👏👏👏') is available. This type of comment is common from genuine followers but is also easy to generate by low-effort accounts or engagement farms, so it provides weak evidence either way. The low fakeness score reflects that the message and emoji use are typical of real users, but the lack of specificity, single-comment sample size, and absence of conversational replies or account context lower confidence. For advertising-feasibility assessment this comment alone is insufficient: it indicates some positive engagement but not audience quality, interest depth, or purchase intent. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter account profiles (follower counts, activity, language match), comment timing patterns, and presence of detailed/product-related comments or questions before making a buy decision."
}
Text: ❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses approval/affection or simple engagement—low informational value. Common both for genuine quick reactions and for generic/bot/purchased engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: three heart emojis (❤️❤️❤️). This is a low-signal data point. Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they can represent authentic quick reactions from real followers but are also commonly produced by bots or purchased-comment services because they require no personalization. Given the single instance, I assign a moderate-to-high likelihood of being non-informative or potentially fake (fakeness_score 60) but with limited confidence (45) because the sample is too small to be decisive. For advertising purchase feasibility, this comment alone provides weak social proof and little evidence of engaged, conversational followers—hence a low overall score (35) with moderate uncertainty (40). Recommended next steps before a buying decision: analyze a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles (age, follower counts, posting history), check comment diversity and sentiment, compare comment-to-like ratio, look for repetitive patterns or copy-paste comments, and evaluate timing of comments relative to posting. These checks will substantially increase confidence in authenticity and campaign suitability."
}
Text: Disfruta 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive / generic emotive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses simple approval/encouragement and an emotional reaction (emoji). Signals casual engagement rather than detailed feedback."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment available: \"Disfruta 😍\" (Spanish: \"Enjoy\"). This is a short, positive, low-effort engagement typical of genuine followers but also commonly produced by low-effort bots or mass commenters. There are no clear red flags (no explicit spam, links, repeated phrases) but the sample size is too small to draw robust conclusions. Fakeness score is low-to-moderate because the comment is plausible as real but ambiguous. Overall suitability for advertising cannot be judged from this single comment — more data needed (volume and diversity of comments, commenter account quality, like-to-comment ratios, timing patterns). Recommended next steps: collect a larger sample of comments across recent posts, inspect commenter profiles (followers, posting history, avatar, usernames), check engagement rates and comment repetition patterns before making an advertising purchase decision."
}
Text: Relax total 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "positive/compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration or positive reaction to the post (social proof / encouragement)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment is available: \"Relax total 😍\". The content is a brief, positive reaction with an emoji; this pattern is typical of genuine follower engagement but is also common in low-effort bot or generic engagement. Given the very small sample size, fakeness risk appears low-to-moderate (estimated 20%) but confidence is limited because one comment is insufficient to judge overall audience authenticity. For advertising decisions, this single supportive comment is a mild positive signal but not decisive. Recommend collecting more data (volume and variety of comments, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, follower quality, and use of anti-fraud checks) before committing budget. Current overall suitability for advertising is moderate (around 55) with low-to-moderate confidence."
}
Text: Se respira relax en esta foto❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "positive/emotive compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express appreciation and emotional reaction; provide social validation and simple engagement (likes, short praise)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment, \"Se respira relax en esta foto❤️\", is a short, natural-sounding praise in Spanish with an emoji. It reads like a genuine viewer reaction (positive sentiment, emotional response) rather than an obvious promotional or bot-like message. Given only one comment, the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions about the overall audience quality or authenticity. The low fakeness score reflects the natural language and context, but confidence is moderate because we lack metadata (commenter profile, account age, follower/following ratio, comment timing, repetition patterns) and a broader comment sample. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single positive comment is a mild signal that the content resonates, but you should request or analyze: total comment volume and diversity, temporal patterns, commenter account quality, comment repetition or templating, and engagement rates relative to follower count before making a purchase decision."
}
Text: 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses positive reaction/admiration; low informational value. Common both in genuine quick reactions and in low-effort or automated engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available and it consists of two heart-eyes emojis. Emoji-only comments provide very limited signal about the authenticity of an audience: they indicate positive sentiment but not intent, relevance, or commenter quality. Such comments can be genuine (casual follower response) or part of inorganic/low-effort engagement (bots, engagement pods, paid comment boosts). Given the minimal dataset, I assign a moderate-to-high fakeness risk (60/100) but with low confidence (30/100) because there is insufficient context. For advertising purchase decisions do not rely on this evidence alone. Recommended additional checks: overall engagement rate (likes, saves, reach) versus follower count, diversity and content of comments, timestamps (bursting), commenter profile audits (real accounts, bio, follower counts), repetition/duplication across posts, and follower growth history. Based on the single emoji comment, the post is not a strong positive signal for ad spend (overall score 30/100), pending a fuller audit."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/C9QHoAnKvCD
-
Comment ER: 0.02%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 80,
"Confidence": 75,
"Interpretation": "Luxury branding and premium cues visible: close-up of a Dior-branded textured box and ribbon combined with a glossy, well-done manicure. These cumulative visual markers indicate an above-average / premium lifestyle, but assessment is limited to a single frame so not maximal confidence."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No face or person speaking visible — the frame is a close-up of hands and product packaging, so no evidence of on-camera personal speaking / talking-head format."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 85,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "Strong visual alignment with beauty/self-care: professionally manicured nails, glossy gel-like finish, and Dior packaging suggest content focused on cosmetics/beauty treatments or luxury beauty items. Single-frame evidence supports a clear association but long-term consistency is unknown."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No signage or logos of low-cost retailers (AliExpress, Shein, Temu, Lidl, Aldi, etc.) are present. Visible branding is a high-end label (Dior), supporting absence of low-end retail advertising in the provided frame."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising detected in the frame; only a Dior box and manicure are visible. Therefore the constraint (no pillow ads) is satisfied for this content."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 90,
"Confidence": 70,
"Interpretation": "Visible advertising (Dior branding) is thematically consistent with beauty/luxury products shown (manicure). The single-frame set is coherent toward beauty/lifestyle rather than a heterogeneous mix, though limited frames reduce confidence."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Very limited evidence for authentic, trust-based advertising: the image shows hands holding luxury packaging (suggesting use), but there are no captions, explanatory text, or demonstrative usage cues. Authenticity cannot be confirmed from this single visual."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "Advertising presence is detectable in the frame via clear Dior branding on packaging, indicating at least one instance of product/brand promotion inside the content."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "No evidence of spoken/textual structure or argumentation in the frame. Structured thinking cannot be assessed from an isolated product close-up."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "No visible instructional content, explanations, or technical detail in the frame. The image alone does not demonstrate transmission of specialized or rare knowledge."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Hand shows some fine lines and skin texture that can be associated with someone above 35, but age estimation from a single hand close-up is uncertain, so confidence is moderate–low."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No verbal, written, or behavioral indicators of cognitive or communicative intelligence are present in the frame; cannot reasonably assess intelligence from this image."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 15,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "The premium beauty cues (Dior, neat manicure) suggest values around self-care and luxury, but there is no explicit first-person expression of principles or consistent value-driven messaging visible, so inference is weak."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Facial expression and vocal tone (primary markers of enthusiasm) are absent. The image does not provide reliable signals of emotional energy."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Charisma and inspirational ability require dynamic speech, gestures, or audience engagement cues, none of which are present in this static close-up."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No explicit professional credentials, clinic environment, or technical demonstration visible. A polished manicure suggests interest or skill in beauty/presentation but does not provide reliable evidence of expert status in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, or related domains."
}
}
Comments (4)
Text: Me súper encantan
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive generic praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express liking/endorsement and register engagement (short, low-effort praise)"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Me súper encantan') is available. It is a generic positive remark that signals engagement but provides little signal about genuine audience interest or purchase intent. Short, high-frequency phrases like this can be authentic fan responses but are also commonly produced by low-effort accounts or bots. Given the limited sample, I rate the comments as moderately suspicious (fakeness ~40/100) but with low-to-moderate confidence because there is no context: no commenter metadata (account age, follower counts), no volume or diversity of comments, no timestamps, and no like/reply patterns. For an advertising purchase decision, this single comment is weak evidence of a valuable engaged audience. Recommended next checks before buying: analyze the full comment set for repetition and timing patterns, inspect commenter profiles for real accounts vs. bot indicators, compare comment rate to follower count and post likes, and review historical engagement consistency."
}
Text: A mi me encantan también así 🤍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Genuine positive/personal comment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses personal liking/agreement and social support for the post (organic engagement rather than promotional or spammy content)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('A mi me encantan también así 🤍') reads as a genuine, personal expression of liking: it uses a first-person phrase and an emoji, not a generic marketing line or repeated template. Based on this alone there is low suspicion of fakery (fakeness score 10), but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall comment authenticity or the influencer's audience quality. For an advertising purchase decision you should request a larger sample of comments and commenter metadata (account age, follower counts, comment timestamps, repetition patterns) and compute engagement metrics (comment/like ratios, unique commenters) before deciding. Current evidence is mildly positive but insufficient for a reliable purchase recommendation."
}
Text: 😍😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji-only praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express positive reaction/admiration; increases visible engagement and social proof but conveys no substantive feedback."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is available and it consists of repeated heart-eye emojis (\"😍😍😍😍\"). Emoji-only comments are common and have ambiguous provenance: they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers or low-effort comments from engagement pods/bots. Because this is a single, non-specific comment there is low informational value about audience quality, intent, or purchase intent. The moderate fakeness score reflects that emoji-only comments are somewhat more likely to be low-effort or automated than detailed, contextual comments, but they are also frequently used by real fans. For an advertising-feasibility decision this single comment is weak evidence — it provides social-proof signal but no signal about conversion likelihood, audience relevance, or comment authenticity. Recommended next checks before buying advertising: inspect the commenter’s profile (age, activity, followers), look for repeated identical emoji comments across multiple posts, analyze overall comment-to-follower and like-to-comment ratios, check timing patterns (bursty/unnatural), and review a larger sample of comments for substance and user diversity. Limitations: assessment is based on a single emoji-only comment, so confidence is limited."
}
Text: Así o en el otro extremo ( rojas) para el día de la boda de mi hija 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Purchase intent / event-planning endorsement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses product/color preference and intent to use the item for a real-life event (daughter's wedding); functions as a positive endorsement and engagement signal."
}
],
"interpretation": "Comment text (Spanish): \"Así o en el otro extremo ( rojas) para el día de la boda de mi hija 😍😍\" — Translation: \"Like this or on the other end (red ones) for my daughter's wedding day.\" Indicators of authenticity: specific context (daughter's wedding), concrete preference (red option), and emotive emojis, all of which point toward a genuine engaged follower rather than a generic spammy bot. Fakeness is assessed low (15/100) but with moderate confidence because only one comment is available and no commenter metadata (account age, follower count, comment history) was provided. Overall assessment for advertising feasibility: this single comment is positive and suggests product appeal for important occasions, but the sample size is too small to conclude broad audience engagement or influencer effectiveness. Recommend: analyze a larger set of comments, check commenter account profiles for authenticity, measure average engagement rate and diversity of comments, and verify consistency of similar genuine-looking responses across multiple posts before making an ad purchase decision."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/C9Kgz5AqrEK
-
Comment ER: 0.02%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Limited positive cues for mid-to-above-average lifestyle: marble-look café table, textured glassware, potted plant in a tasteful pot and a neatly served iced coffee suggest a mid/premium café setting. No clear luxury-brand items or home interior cues to justify a higher score; single-frame evidence is sparse."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No person visible in the provided frames; no face, eye contact, or mouth movement to indicate an on-camera talking-head format."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No visible beauty or self-care products, devices, routines, or related on-screen text. Frames show a beverage and plant only, so no evidence of a beauty/self-care content identity."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No visible advertising or logos for low-cost retailers (AliExpress, Shein, Temu, Lidl, etc.) in the frames."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising or pillows visible in the frames; therefore constraint satisfied."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content present to evaluate for thematic consistency; absence of ads implies no inconsistent/mixed advertising."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content visible to assess authenticity. In the absence of commercials/promotional frames there are no signs of scripted or inauthentic sales messaging."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No advertising elements detected in the analyzed frames, so advertising frequency is effectively zero in this sample."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No speaking, captions, or explanatory text present in the frames to evaluate argument structure or reasoning. Low score reflects lack of evidence rather than observed poor structure."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No instructional content, terminology, or explanatory captions visible. Unable to detect evidence of domain knowledge transmission from the provided frames."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 0,
"Interpretation": "No person is visible in the frames; age cannot be inferred. Score set neutral due to lack of evidence and confidence is effectively zero."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No verbal or textual content to judge cognitive clarity, vocabulary, or analytical reasoning. Low score reflects absence of assessable signals."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No first-person captions, value statements, or narrative cues visible. Cannot identify stable principles, voice, or audience filtering from these frames."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No visible person, facial expressions, or energetic on-screen text to indicate enthusiasm or positive energy. Score low due to absence of evidence."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No on-camera presence or expressive delivery in the frames to evaluate ability to inspire or emotionally engage viewers."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No visible credentials, professional environment, educational text, or domain-specific tools related to cosmetology, dermatology, makeup, plastic surgery or fashion. Reasonably confident there is no evidence of expert status in the provided frames."
}
}
Comments (5)
Text:
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 0,
"fakeness_confidence": 0,
"overall_score": 0,
"overall_confidence": 0,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "no_comments_provided",
"count": 0,
"purpose": "No comments were supplied, so types and purposes cannot be determined"
}
],
"interpretation": "No comments were provided in the request. I cannot assess comment types, purposes, or estimate fakeness without the actual comment data (or a link/export). Please paste the comments (or a representative sample), provide an export (CSV/JSON), or share a link to the post and any available metadata (timestamps, likes, replies). With that I will: 1) classify comment types (e.g., genuine praise, questions, emoji-only, spam/promotional, bot-like repetitive, giveaway entries, user tagging), 2) estimate per-comment and overall fakeness scores (0-100) with confidence levels, 3) provide an interpretation of engagement quality and the influencer's suitability for advertising, and 4) give recommendations for next steps."
}
Text: 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 25,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "express positive sentiment/admiration; low-effort engagement with little indication of purchase intent"
}
],
"interpretation": "The sample contains a single comment consisting of two heart-eyes emojis (😍😍). Emoji-only comments are low-information: they signal positive sentiment but provide no specifics about interest, product intent, or user authenticity. Such short, generic reactions are commonly posted by real followers but are also frequently produced by engagement pods or bots because they are easy and low-risk. Given the extremely small sample (one comment), any judgment about overall comment authenticity is highly uncertain. The comment leans slightly suspicious (hence a moderate fakeness score) because emoji-only replies are a common pattern in inorganic engagement, but this is far from conclusive. For advertising decisions, this single low-effort comment is not a reliable indicator of an engaged, conversion-ready audience. Recommend gathering a larger sample of comments, checking commenter account quality (age, followers, activity, originality of comments), temporal patterns (comment bursts), hashtag reuse, and overall like-to-comment ratios before making a buy."
}
Text: 👏👏👏
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "generic positive emoji",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Show appreciation/approval and increase visible engagement; low informational value (could be genuine follower, passive fan, or part of engagement pods/bots)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is a pair of clapping-hands emojis, which is a generic positive reaction that provides very little signal about audience quality or intent. Short emoji comments are commonly produced by real casual followers but are also frequently seen from engagement pods and automated/bot accounts, so the authenticity is uncertain. Given the minimal content and absence of conversational replies, this comment suggests superficial engagement rather than active, high-value interaction. For advertising-purchase decisions, this alone is a weak positive indicator; you should review a larger sample of comments for conversational depth, diversity, follower profiles, like-to-comment ratios, and other engagement metrics (story views, saves, link clicks) before trusting audience quality. Recommended next checks: distribution of comment types, presence of long-form genuine replies, follower account authenticity, and performance on past sponsored posts."
}
Text: 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 50,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji-only positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses approval/affection; lightweight engagement primarily to signal positivity and marginally boost reach. Could be genuine follower interaction or low-effort bot/comment farm output."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment ('😍😍') is available. Emoji-only comments are common and provide minimal signal about audience authenticity or intent. With one short positive emoji it's impossible to determine if engagement is organic or inorganic — such comments are frequently left by both real users and automated/low-effort accounts. Because of the extremely small sample, the fakeness assessment is uncertain. For advertising feasibility, this single comment gives little confidence in audience quality. Recommended next steps: collect more comments and metrics (total likes, comment volume and diversity, commenter profiles, follower counts and follower growth history, timestamps and repetition of identical comments), and inspect commenter accounts for signs of bots (no posts, very few followers, repeated identical comments across posts). Only after broader pattern analysis can a reliable recommendation on ad spend be made."
}
Text: Si 👏 pequeños placeres que se disfrutan muchísimo
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "short positive/relatable comment with emoji",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses appreciation and relatability to the post; provides social proof and positive sentiment."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Si 👏 pequeños placeres que se disfrutan muchísimo') is a short, positive, conversational remark using an emoji, which is typical of genuine audience engagement. There are no obvious spam signs (no links, excessive hashtags, generic praise copied word-for-word), so likelihood of it being authentic is high, but the sample size is one comment. Because of that, confidence in making broader judgments about the influencer's audience quality or comment authenticity is limited. For an advertising decision, this single comment is mildly supportive but insufficient; I recommend analyzing a larger sample of recent comments (diversity of commenters, timing, follower profiles, ratio of meaningful to generic comments) and checking engagement metrics (likes per post, follower growth, comment-to-follower ratio) before purchasing advertising. Current overall assessment is cautious: positive signal but too little evidence to be strongly confident."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/C8wn2RKKBwc
-
Comment ER: 0.04%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 80,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Visual cues indicate an above-average / comfortable lifestyle: spacious, bright apartment with large windows and sea view, glossy marble floors, modern minimal interior, potted plants and tidy kitchen island. These are cumulative premium/home signals; no clear low-cost markers visible. Confidence reduced because assessment is from a single frame and no brand labels or receipts are shown."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "Image shows the blogger looking at the camera in a selfie/mirror shot with direct eye contact and an engaged facial expression, which are typical talking-head frames. However, this is a still photo with no audio/transcript, so there is no reliable evidence she speaks on camera (voice-over vs direct speech cannot be inferred)."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Strong visual emphasis on personal grooming: styled hair, professional-looking makeup (lipstick, defined brows, lashes), and polished appearance — signals consistent with beauty/self-care content. Lack of visible skincare products, devices, or routine steps reduces confidence that this is the creator's stable content identity rather than a single styled photo."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No visible advertising, logos, product packaging, or low-cost retailer references (Shein/Temu/AliExpress/Lidl/Aldi) appear in the frame."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 70,
"Interpretation": "No pillows or pillow branding are visible in the frame, and no Sleep & Glow or other pillow advertising is detectable."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 70,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content or product categories visible in the provided frame, so there is no evidence of mixed or inconsistent ad themes."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No advertising is present in the frame to evaluate authenticity, realism, or integration. Score defaulted high because there is no sign of staged promotions, but confidence is very low due to lack of ad evidence."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 80,
"Interpretation": "No advertising elements visible in the examined frame, indicating advertising is not present in this content sample."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "There is no readable on-screen text, spoken transcript, or multi-frame argumentation to evaluate structure or reasoning. Image alone does not provide evidence of structured explanations or cause–effect argumentation."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "No visible captions, explanatory text, professional tools, or clinical environment to indicate transmission of advanced or specialized knowledge. Insufficient evidence to assess knowledge diffusion level."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Facial features and style suggest an adult likely in late 20s–early 30s rather than clearly over 35. The single image does not strongly indicate age >35, so score reflects likely under-35 with moderate confidence."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "No speech, captions, or content structure are available to judge cognitive/communicative intelligence. Visual presentation is neat and intentional (suggesting care and social awareness), but that's an indirect and weak signal."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "No textual or spoken evidence of stated principles, values, or first-person convictions. The curated personal presentation (grooming, tidy home) implies some value on appearance and order, but this is a weak, inferential signal."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 75,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Facial expression (smile), bright eyes, and overall warm, open posture in the selfie convey positive energy and enthusiasm visually. Confidence is moderate because emotional tone in a still image is less reliable than video/audio."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "The subject presents confidently (direct eye contact, styled look, warm smile) which are visual components of charisma. Without video engagement or audience reaction, ability to inspire cannot be firmly established."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "No professional credentials, clinical environment, or specialist tools are visible. The polished appearance suggests an enthusiast or influencer; however, there is insufficient evidence to classify as an expert (cosmetologist, dermatologist, makeup artist, etc.)."
}
}
Comments (10)
Text: Que guapa!! A por un finde buenísimo 👏
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Supportive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and encouragement; social approval to the influencer, increases visible engagement and positivity on the post."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Que guapa!! A por un finde buenísimo 👏') is a brief, natural-sounding compliment + encouragement in Spanish. It appears authentic (natural wording, punctuation and emoji use) and serves to boost social proof and positive sentiment. However, this is only one comment — there is insufficient data to judge overall comment authenticity or community quality. To decide on advertising feasibility you should examine a larger sample: comment diversity, repetitive phrases, commenter profiles, follower-to-comment ratios, timing patterns, and presence of brand-relevant or conversational comments. Based on the single comment alone I rate comment fakeness low (10) but my confidence in the broader assessment is limited (overall confidence 35)."
}
Text: Guapaaa😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment/Support (generic)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/attraction and provide positive engagement (short praise + emoji). Likely intended to show support and increase visible engagement; could come from a genuine follower, casual fan, or a low-effort/farm account."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Guapaaa😍\" is a brief, generic compliment with an emoji and elongated spelling. This pattern is common among real followers leaving quick praise and among low-effort bot/farm accounts or purchased comments. Because there is only one comment to inspect, evidence is very limited: there is no personalization, no conversational follow-up, and no metadata about the commenter (profile age, follower count, posting habits), so I cannot confidently classify it as authentic. I assign a moderate-low fakeness score (35) reflecting that generic praise leans slightly toward potential inauthentic engagement but is frequently genuine among fans. For advertising feasibility, this single comment gives weak positive signal (score 45) — it indicates some engagement but not meaningful audience quality. Recommended next steps before buying ads: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts; inspect commenter profiles for real photos, posting history, follower/following ratios; check comment diversity (length, language, specificity), timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios. Those checks will raise confidence and allow a reliable decision."
}
Text: Igualmente preciosa 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive engagement (short, generic)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Praise and social approval — a brief, friendly affirmation likely intended to build rapport or show appreciation for the post."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Igualmente preciosa 😍😍\" is a short, positive compliment with emoji. It reads as low-effort but typical follower engagement rather than a clear bot or spam message. Indicators of authenticity: natural language, personalized tone (use of \"Igualmente\"), and emoji use. Indicators against authenticity are limited given the brevity — generic compliments can appear in both genuine comments and engagement pods/bought comment sets. Because this is only one comment, the sample size is far too small to draw confident conclusions about the influencer's overall audience quality. For advertising-purchase decisions, this single comment is weak evidence: it suggests there is at least some positive engagement, but does not confirm meaningful, genuine audience interest or conversion potential. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (200+), check for repetition of phrases/usernames, examine like-to-comment ratios over multiple posts, review follower growth patterns, look for substantive comments (questions, tagged friends, specific references), and validate engagement timing. Based on the limited evidence here, I rate the likelihood of comment fakeness as low (15) but have only moderate confidence; overall advertising-feasibility based on comments alone is low (30) with moderate confidence."
}
Text: Bonita ! Buen finde 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and friendly well-wishing (short praise + emoji), indicating positive sentiment and lightweight engagement"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment reads \"Bonita ! Buen finde 😍\" (\"Beautiful! Have a good weekend 😍\"). It is a short, positive, Spanish-language compliment with an emoji and appears human-toned (personal greeting). There are no obvious bot markers (no links, tags, generic repeated phrases) but the message is also generic and could be produced by either a genuine follower or an engagement pod/bot. With only one comment, the sample is too small to judge overall authenticity or audience quality. Recommendation: examine a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, check for repeated commenters, timing patterns, commenter account quality (age, followers, content), like-to-comment ratios, and language consistency before deciding on ad spend. Current assessment: likely genuine low-effort positive engagement, low probability of being fake (fakeness ~15) but moderate uncertainty. Overall suitability for advertising cannot be determined from this single comment—score neutral (50) and further audit is advised."
}
Text: Igualmente tesoro 💜💜
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Affectionate/personal reply",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Reciprocation or friendly support (e.g., replying with affection and emoji). Likely a genuine follower, friend or engaged audience member."
},
{
"type": "Generic/bot-like engagement",
"count": 0,
"purpose": "Short, non-specific praise or single-word compliments that often indicate automation (not present here)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: 'Igualmente tesoro 💜💜' (Spanish: 'Same to you, sweetheart'). The tone is affectionate and personal, with emoji, which leans toward a genuine interaction (friend or engaged follower) rather than a spammy or promotional bot comment. However, this is a single data point — there is insufficient evidence to judge overall comment authenticity or the influencer's audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects the personal tone, but confidence is moderate-low because more comments, commenter profiles, timing patterns, and repetition checks are needed. For advertising decisions, this single comment is neither a strong positive nor negative signal. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments across multiple posts for repetition/identical phrasing, check commenter profiles for real follower patterns (profile pictures, follower counts, posting history), review comment timestamps for burst patterns, and compare engagement rate (comments/likes relative to follower count)."
}
Text: Igualmente bella
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short compliment / positive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Praise and social bonding; expresses a brief positive reaction to the post (likely follower or acquaintance engagement)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment was provided: \"Igualmente bella\" (Spanish for \"Likewise, beautiful\"). This is a short, generic complimentary comment with no emojis, tags, or promotional language. Indicators: \n- Likelihood genuine: moderate — the comment is contextually appropriate and non-promotional. \n- Signals raising slight suspicion: brevity and generic phrasing can be used by low-effort accounts or bots, but there is no clear bot signature (repeated template, link, or irrelevant content). \n- Information insufficiency: a single comment gives very limited evidence about audience authenticity or engagement quality. \nRecommendation for advertiser due diligence: analyze a larger sample of comments, commenter account profiles (age of account, follower counts, posting history), timing patterns (many similar comments in short time), comment diversity (language, length, emojis), engagement metrics (likes, story views, overall comment/like ratio). \nOverall advertising-feasibility judgment: currently low-to-moderate (40/100) because the single comment neither supports nor strongly undermines authenticity — more data required to make a confident buy/no-buy decision."
}
Text: ❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji-only positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express support/affection or a quick positive reaction to the post; increases visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback. Such comments can come from genuine followers, casual viewers, engagement pods, or automated/bot accounts."
}
],
"interpretation": "There is only a single comment consisting of three heart emojis (❤️❤️❤️). This is a low-information signal: it indicates positive sentiment but no depth of engagement. Emoji-only comments are common for genuine casual followers but are also frequently produced by engagement pods or low-effort/bot accounts. With only this data point, I assess a moderate probability of inauthenticity (fakeness score 40) but with low confidence (35) because context is missing. For advertising feasibility this comment alone is a weak positive signal — it suggests friendly audience reaction but not reliable proof of an engaged, high-quality audience (overall score 40, confidence 30). Recommended next steps: review a larger sample of comments for variety and substance, check whether identical emoji comments repeat across users, inspect commenter profile quality (follower counts, posting activity, bio), compare like-to-comment ratios, and analyze timing patterns to detect pods or bot activity."
}
Text: Vamos 👏🏻 que lo mereces
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive support / encouragement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express praise/encouragement to the poster, signal social approval and boost apparent engagement (short, friendly compliment with emoji)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Vamos 👏🏻 que lo mereces\" is a short, positive encouragement likely from a follower or acquaintance. It contains no hyperlinks, no repeated promotional language, and uses an informal emoji — factors that slightly favor authenticity. However, the comment is generic and could be posted by a casual follower, a known fan, or by a low-effort bot; with only one data point there's limited ability to detect pattern-based inauthenticity. For influencer advertising feasibility this single supportive comment is a small positive signal but insufficient alone. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments for repetition/patterns, check commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), measure overall engagement rate (likes/comments relative to follower count), comment diversity and depth, timestamp patterns, and presence of spam or promotional comments. Based on this lone comment the risk of fakeness appears low-moderate, but confidence is limited due to sample size; overall suitability for ad purchase cannot be reliably determined from this single comment."
}
Text: 🩶🩶
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 50,
"fakeness_confidence": 25,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji reaction (heart emojis)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses positive sentiment/affection or simple acknowledgement. Low-effort engagement that signals approval but provides no substantive feedback; such comments can come from genuine followers, casual lurkers, or generic/bot accounts."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is two heart emojis (🩶🩶). Emoji-only comments are common and ambiguous: they indicate positive sentiment but carry little informational value. Such comments are frequently used by real followers as quick positive reactions, but they are also commonly produced by low-effort bot accounts or engagement farms to inflate comment counts. With only one comment available, there is insufficient evidence to reliably judge authenticity or audience quality. \n\nRecommendations to improve assessment before an advertising decision: check the commenter profile(s) for account age, follower count, post history and profile completeness; scan a larger sample of comments on this post and the influencer's recent posts for repetition (same emoji/comment across many posts), timing patterns (many comments clustered quickly), and language consistency; calculate engagement metrics (likes, comments, saves) vs follower count; look for signals of real community (conversational replies, varied comments, commenter account diversity). Consider using an account-audit tool (bot-detection, follower-audit) for broader reliability checks. \n\nBased on the single emoji comment, treat the signal as weak and ambiguous — not sufficient alone to support a confident buy decision."
}
Text: Guapa 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive engagement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/affection (short praise with emoji) to show support and contribute to social proof."
}
],
"interpretation": "There is only a single short comment: 'Guapa 😍' (a generic compliment in Spanish). This is typical of genuine follower praise but is also the kind of minimal, repeatable text often produced by bots or casual viewers. With one comment there is very limited signal: authenticity indicators are the use of natural language and emoji, but the comment’s brevity and generic nature reduce confidence. For advertising-feasibility decisions this input is insufficient; treat the engagement quality as unknown-to-low. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments, inspect commenter profiles for real-account signals (profile photos, posting history, follower counts), check for repeated identical comments across posts, evaluate like-to-comment ratios, and compute overall engagement rate before making a buy decision."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/C8prFXfKKrg
-
Comment ER: 0.10%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Mid-range / slightly above-average lifestyle signals: tidy, coordinated bedroom with neutral decor, matching cushions, framed wall art and wooden floor; tasteful jewelry and well-applied makeup. No clear luxury-brand cues (no Aesop/La Mer packaging, no premium candles, no luxury car), so scored moderately above average with medium confidence."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Strong visual signal that the creator frames themselves for the audience: close-up selfie-style image, direct eye contact with the camera and engaged facial expression. However, this is a still image so actual speaking-on-camera cannot be fully confirmed — score lowered and confidence moderate."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Visual indicators associated with beauty/self-care: made-up face, styled hair, earrings and attention to grooming. No visible skincare products, devices, or multi-step routines in the frame, so association with beauty/self-care is plausible but not strongly evidenced."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No visible advertising or logos for low-cost retailers (Shein, Temu, AliExpress, Aldi, Lidl etc.) in the provided frame; image shows personal environment and no retailer branding."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "Pillows/bed are visible but show no branding or pillow advertisement; no Sleep & Glow branding detected either."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content visible in the analyzed frame, therefore no inconsistent mix of unrelated product categories is present."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "No advertising is visible, so authenticity of sales messaging cannot be evaluated from the frame. Mid score reflects lack of evidence rather than positive proof of authentic promotion."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No advertising elements are present in the provided frame; therefore frequency within this sample is zero."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "No spoken captions, on-screen text, or multi-frame narrative are provided to show structured argumentation — little to no evidence of stepwise explanation or reasoned justification in the single frame."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "No visible content (text, diagrams, product discussions) that would indicate transmission of rare or professional-level knowledge; inability to assess depth from a single selfie-style frame."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Visually appears around late 20s–early 30s; slight signs of maturity but no strong indicators that reliably place the subject over 30/35. Uncertain based on a single image."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "No speech or text to evaluate clarity, reasoning, or vocabulary. Neutral score reflects inability to assess cognitive/communicative intelligence from a still photograph."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "No explicit first‑person statements, captions, or value-driven messaging visible in the frame. Personal style suggests care for appearance and a tidy environment but explicit value transmission is not evidenced."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "Facial expression is warm and mildly upbeat (soft smile, engaged eyes), which suggests moderate positive energy. Still-image format limits ability to judge consistent enthusiasm across content."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Approachable, confident selfie framing and pleasant expression provide moderate signals of personal charisma, but charisma/inspirational ability requires dynamic content (speech, storytelling) not present here."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No professional credentials, clinical environment, tools, or on-screen titles visible to indicate expertise in cosmetology, dermatology, makeup artistry, plastic surgery, or fashion. Low score with high confidence based on visual evidence."
}
}
Comments (15)
Text: A mi me encanta 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive / generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express approval and engagement (social proof); short emotive praise rather than substantive feedback"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"A mi me encanta 😍\" is a short, positive, non-specific endorsement. Such comments can be genuine expressions of liking, but they are also typical of low-effort engagement (including bot-generated or mass-produced comments) because they lack detail, reference to post content, or user-specific signals. Given only one comment and no metadata (author profile, timing, likes on the comment, language diversity, or additional comments), confidence in assessing authenticity is limited. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment alone is weak evidence of a real, engaged audience. Recommended next steps: analyze comment volume and diversity, commenter profiles (real follower counts, posting history), comment timestamps and repetition patterns, likes/replies to comments, and overall engagement rate relative to follower count before making buy decisions."
}
Text: Era el encanto de Instagram
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "nostalgic/positive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express nostalgia or appreciation; likely genuine emotional reaction from an individual follower rather than promotional or bot-driven engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment: \"Era el encanto de Instagram\" (Spanish — \"It was the charm of Instagram\") reads as a short, human-like, nostalgic/positive remark. It does not contain typical bot markers (repeated emojis, generic praise, emoji-only, promotional links) nor direct calls-to-action. Because there is only one comment provided, sample size is extremely small, preventing confident conclusions about overall audience authenticity or engagement quality. Tentative assessment: low likelihood of this particular comment being fake (fakeness_score 15, moderate confidence), but overall feasibility for advertising cannot be judged reliably from one comment — engagement volume, like counts, comment diversity, reply threads, follower quality, posting frequency, and historical patterns are needed. Given the available evidence, the post shows at least some organic-feeling engagement, but there is insufficient data to recommend advertising buy solely on this signal (overall_score 45, moderate-low confidence). Recommended next steps: collect more comments, likes, follower demographics, comment timestamps, repetition/duplication patterns and check for bot-like accounts among commenters before making purchase decisions."
}
Text: 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji-only praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Surface-level positive engagement (expresses liking/affection). Purpose can be genuine appreciation, quick follower reaction, or low-effort/comment-bot/engagement-pod activity intended to inflate visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment provided (\"😍😍\") is ambiguous. Emoji-only comments are common from genuine followers as quick positive reactions but are also a frequent pattern in bot activity and engagement pods because they require no original text and are easy to automate. With only one comment and no metadata (commenter account age, follower count, comment timing, distribution of other comments, like-to-comment ratio), the assessment must be cautious. I lean moderately toward the comment being low-quality/possibly inauthentic (hence a fakeness score of 60) because emoji-only comments are low informational value and frequently used to inflate metrics; however confidence is limited (45) due to the tiny sample. For advertising feasibility: this single comment does not provide strong evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. If the post’s other comments and engagement show similar low-effort patterns, that would lower the influencer’s suitability for campaigns sensitive to genuine reach. I recommend obtaining a larger sample of comments and profile-level signals (commenter accounts, timing patterns, follower-to-engagement ratios, and diversity of comments) before making a buying decision."
}
Text: Lo adoraba 😍 ahora me agota
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 75,
"overall_score": 70,
"overall_confidence": 70,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "personal opinion / user experience",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses a change in sentiment (from positive to negative/exhaustion); genuine engagement and emotional reaction rather than promotion or generic praise."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('Lo adoraba 😍 ahora me agota') reads as a genuine, nuanced personal reaction: the commenter used to love the content/product but now finds it tiring or overwhelming. It's not a short generic praise or promotional message, which lowers the likelihood of it being fake or bot-generated. Fakeness risk is low (score ~10) but confidence is moderate-high because this is only one comment — a larger sample could reveal patterns. For advertising decisions: this comment alone signals a potential fatigue among at least some followers; it is not an immediate red flag for widespread fake engagement, but you should review a larger set of comments for repeated negative sentiment, sentiment trends over time, and engagement quality before purchasing ad space or partnering. Recommended next steps: sample 50–200 recent comments, check for repeated short/generic replies, analyze like-to-comment ratios and commenter account authenticity (profile history, followers, posting behavior)."
}
Text: Ay me encanta esa camiseta con la florecita peque!!! 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 70,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "positive/product-specific praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration for a specific item (the T‑shirt), signal endorsement and boost perceived popularity/appeal."
}
],
"interpretation": "This single comment is a short, enthusiastic, product-specific compliment with emojis and a small personal detail ('la florecita peque'), which is typical of genuine follower praise rather than generic bot text. Fakeness risk is low (score ~10) but confidence is limited by sample size (only one comment). For advertising feasibility the comment provides a positive signal but is insufficient alone: low comment volume and no diversity of engagement types (questions, critical feedback, call-to-action, conversions) reduce confidence in audience quality. Recommendation: analyze a larger set of recent comments, overall engagement rate (likes/comments/followers), follower authenticity, and comment patterns across multiple posts before making a purchasing decision."
}
Text: Que tiemposss
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "short casual engagement / nostalgic",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses nostalgia or a brief reaction to the post (emotional engagement). Not promotional or directive; likely a single genuine follower reaction but low informational value."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Que tiemposss' is a short, informal, likely human reaction expressing nostalgia. It is low-effort and gives little signal about genuine audience quality, conversion intent, or broad engagement patterns. Fakeness risk is low (short, contextually sensible, no spammy links or repeated templated text), but confidence is moderate to low because one brief comment is ambiguous and easy to fabricate. For an advertising purchase decision this sample is insufficient: it neither demonstrates sustained, high-quality engagement nor provides evidence of targeted audience interest. Recommend collecting more data before proceeding — e.g., full comment set on multiple posts, commenter profiles (real followers vs. recently created accounts), like-to-follower ratios, engagement distribution across posts, audience demographics, and past brand partnership results. Based on this single comment, score is low–moderate (30/100) for advertising feasibility, with limited confidence."
}
Text: A mí tb me gustaba más antes !! Fotos sin más ❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "negative feedback / preference change",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses that the commenter preferred the creator's earlier content; provides mild criticism and signals decreased enthusiasm while still engaging (uses a heart emoji that softens the critique)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment appears authentic: a real follower giving mild negative feedback about a perceived decline from earlier content ('A mí tb me gustaba más antes !! Fotos sin más ❤️'). It's conversational, specific (comparison to 'before'), and contains an emoji, which reduces the likelihood of being bot-generated or promotional. From an advertising-feasibility perspective one such comment is not decisive: it shows some audience honesty and potential dissatisfaction but no clear signals of mass negativity, spam, or inorganic engagement. Recommendation: gather more comments, like-to-comment ratios, comment diversity and temporal patterns before making a buy decision. If many comments match this pattern, it could indicate declining audience sentiment and lower ad effectiveness; if this is isolated, it suggests authentic engagement and only minor risk."
}
Text: A mi me encanta y aún de vez en cuando me gusta hacerlo
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 10,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 60,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive personal endorsement",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses genuine liking and personal use/occasional engagement with the subject (personal endorsement/support)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('A mi me encanta y aún de vez en cuando me gusta hacerlo') reads like a genuine personal endorsement: it states liking and occasional personal engagement. Fakeness likelihood is low based on content (personal phrasing, first person), but confidence is limited because this is only one comment and could still be isolated or unrepresentative. For influencer advertising assessment this data point is mildly positive but insufficient: you need larger sample size, commenter profile checks (follower count, activity, language consistency), temporal patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and diversity of commenters to judge audience authenticity and engagement quality before purchasing advertising."
}
Text: 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji-only positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration or approval; low-effort engagement that increases visible engagement but provides little informational value about true interest or intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "The available sample is a single comment consisting of three heart-eyes emojis (😍😍😍). This indicates a positive sentiment but very low signal: emoji-only comments are common from both genuine followers (quick, casual approval) and automated/low-effort accounts or engagement pods. Given only one comment and no contextual data (usernames, timing, like counts, follower numbers, diversity of comments), the assessment of authenticity is uncertain. The moderate fakeness score reflects the elevated risk that emoji-only comments can be produced by inorganic engagement, while the low confidence scores reflect the very limited sample. For advertising feasibility: this single example suggests some surface-level positive reaction but is not sufficient evidence of meaningful, authentic engagement or conversion potential. Recommend obtaining more data before purchase decisions — e.g., volume and variety of comments, commenter account quality, comment timestamps and patterns, like-to-comment ratio, saves/shares, audience demographics, and recent engagement history — and running a larger sample authenticity check (look for repeated emoji/comments across posts, high commenter-to-follower ratios, and suspicious account patterns)."
}
Text: 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Emoji-only positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration or positive sentiment; low informational value; can inflate visible engagement. May come from genuine fans or low-effort/bot accounts."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: \"😍😍😍\". Emoji-only comments are ambiguous: they do indicate positive sentiment but carry little context and are commonly produced both by genuine followers and by automated/low-effort engagement (bots, engagement pods, or commenters seeking visibility). With only one short emoji comment, there is insufficient evidence to assess audience authenticity or real influencer impact. For advertising decisions, this comment provides a weak signal — it does not show product interest, purchase intent, or meaningful conversation. I recommend collecting more data before buying ads: sample comments across multiple recent posts, check for repeated identical comments or patterns (sign of automation), inspect commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting behavior), compare like-to-comment ratios, and review comment timestamps for bursts. Based on the single emoji comment, I rate comment fakeness as leaning toward suspicious (60/100) but with low confidence (35/100), and I give overall ad-feasibility a low score (30/100) with low confidence (30/100) until further evidence is obtained."
}
Text: Buenas noches guapa
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / greeting",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Short, positive engagement — social approval, relationship maintenance; likely a follower leaving a friendly remark or a low-effort engagement (could also be a generic bot/spam comment)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short comment ('Buenas noches guapa') is available. This is a generic compliment/greeting that signals positive sentiment but provides almost no information about audience quality, purchase intent, or genuine engagement depth. The comment's brevity and generic phrasing slightly increase the possibility it could be low-effort or automated, but it is also consistent with a normal follower interaction. Given the extremely limited sample, confidence in any strong conclusion is limited. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this single comment is insufficient evidence; analyze a larger sample of comments (look for varied, specific comments, account profiles of commenters, repetition of phrases, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and follower authenticity) before deciding."
}
Text: Guapa!!!!!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 25,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration / social validation (low-effort engagement). Could be a genuine fan comment or a templated/bot-like praise; provides little signal about audience quality or purchase intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Guapa!!!!!' is a short, enthusiastic compliment. As an isolated data point it gives very limited information: it signals positive sentiment but no substantive engagement (no questions, no product references, no discussion). Generic one-word compliments are common from genuine followers but are also frequently produced by low-effort bot accounts or engagement-for-engagement schemes. Given only this comment, I estimate a moderate chance of inauthenticity (fakeness_score 40) but confidence in that judgment is low because of the tiny sample (fakeness_confidence 35). For advertising feasibility this comment is weak evidence of an engaged, conversion-ready audience — overall assessment is low (25) with low confidence (30). Recommendation: before buying ads, request a larger sample of recent comments and commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, activity), check comments-to-followers ratio, look for conversational/unique comments, and examine comment diversity and timing to better assess authenticity and audience value."
}
Text: ❤️❤️❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 50,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 55,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses positive reaction/affection and provides social proof; low informational value (engagement boost rather than commentary)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: three heart emojis (❤️❤️❤️). Emoji-only comments are common and can be genuine quick reactions from real followers, but they are also the easiest type of engagement to fabricate or obtain via bulk-engagement services. With only this one short, non-specific comment there is very low signal about audience quality, intent, or relevance for advertising. For influencer-purchase decisions this kind of comment indicates weak qualitative engagement — it contributes to vanity metrics (visible likes/comments) but provides no evidence of motivated, purchase-intent audience. Recommendation: request additional data (full recent comment samples, engagement rate relative to follower count, audience demographics, reach/insights) and scan for patterns (repeated identical emoji comments across posts, sudden spikes, follower account quality). If only emoji-style comments dominate, treat the influencer as higher risk for paid partnerships or run a small paid test campaign before larger spend."
}
Text: Hermosa
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 55,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / generic praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and generate positive sentiment; simple engagement to show support or boost perceived popularity"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Hermosa' is a brief, positive compliment. This type of comment is common and can come from genuine followers or from low-effort engagement (bots or mass commenters). With only one short comment there is very limited signal: it indicates a positive reaction but provides no information about audience relevance, purchase intent, or comment authenticity. Fakeness is moderately suspected because one-word compliments are commonly automated or copied, but confidence is low due to the tiny sample. For an advertising decision, comments like this alone are insufficient — review a larger set of comments, engagement rates (likes vs. comments), follower quality, and conversation depth before proceeding."
}
Text: A mi me encanta😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 50,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "positive/generic praise (short + emoji)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express appreciation and positive sentiment; low-effort engagement intended to show support and increase visible engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Есть только один комментарий — «A mi me encanta😍», краткий позитивный отзыв с эмодзи. Это типичный короткий/общий комментарий, который может быть как от реального заинтересованного подписчика, так и от низкокачественного/бесплатного взаимодействия (бот, масслайк/коммент-сервис, engagement pod). По одному сообщению нельзя делать уверенные выводы о честности аудитории: отсутствие разнообразия комментариев, отсутствие дискуссии и минимальный информационный контент повышают сомнение в высоком качестве вовлечённости. Для решения о покупке рекламы рекомендую дополнительно проверить: профили комментаторов (реальные ли аккаунты, активность, аватар, публикации), временную синхронность комментариев (спайк за короткое время), соотношение подписчиков к лайкам/комментам в других постах, процент оригинальных содержательных комментариев и демографию аудитории. На основании только этого комментария риск покупки нельзя считать низким; нужен больший срез данных."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/C8iE3pOqFSV
-
Comment ER: 0.05%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 75,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Visual cues suggest an above-average / comfortable lifestyle: a furnished terrace with wicker seating and patterned cushions, decorative lanterns, glass/metal balcony railing, tidy landscaping and an unobstructed coastal/nightscape view with moon reflection. These elements cumulatively lean toward mid-to-premium living or a higher-end vacation property. No explicit high-luxury brand indicators are visible, so score is not maximal."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No person is visible in the frames and there are no visual cues of someone speaking to camera (no face, no centered headshot, no mouth movement)."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "Image content is a night terrace scene with furniture and a view; there are no visible beauty or self-care products, devices, routines, masks, or related props to indicate a beauty/self-care content identity."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content or retailer branding is visible in the frames. There are no logos or product boxes that would indicate AliExpress, Shein, Temu, Aldi, Lidl, or similar low-cost retailers."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising or pillow brand signage is present. A decorative cushion is visible on the chair but there is no ad or brand claim for pillows (Sleep & Glow or otherwise)."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No advertising is present to evaluate for consistency; absence of ads means there is no mix of unrelated product categories in the provided frames."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "There is no visible advertising, on-screen text, or product demonstration in the frames to evaluate authenticity. Because no ads appear, there are no signs of scripted or inauthentic sales messages to judge."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content is visible in the provided frames, so advertising frequency within this sample is zero."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "No talking or captioned explanation is visible in the frames. Without on-camera speech or readable instructional text, there is no evidence of structured argumentation or stepwise explanation."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "There are no informative captions, demonstrations, or spoken content in the frames to indicate any level of specialized or novel knowledge. Assessment is limited by absence of verbal/textual material."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 5,
"Interpretation": "No human subject is visible in the frames, so there is no visual basis to infer the blogger's age. Score set neutral due to lack of evidence and very low confidence."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Intelligence judgments require speech content, structure, or argumentative behavior. With only an environmental photo and no speaking or text, there is insufficient evidence—score is low and confidence is low."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "While the setting suggests appreciation for atmosphere and aesthetics (candles/lanterns, tidy terrace), there is no direct first-person messaging or stated principles to evaluate 'own truth' transmission. Very limited inference and low confidence."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Emotional tone and enthusiasm normally require facial expressions or vocal cues. The static, calm night scene does not provide evidence of the blogger's emotional energy—low score and low confidence."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 20,
"Interpretation": "Charisma assessment needs visible presence, delivery, or audience engagement signs. No person or performance is visible, so there is no basis to claim strong inspirational ability."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No evidence (no credentials, no professional environment, no demonstrations or textual claims) supports identification of the blogger as an expert in cosmetology, makeup, dermatology, plastic surgery, or fashion. Frames show a landscape/terrace only."
}
}
Comments (10)
Text: Que precioso!! Como dices en directo debía ser espectacular!!!
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive feedback",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and social support for the post; show engagement and encouragement to the creator. Also references a live event ('en directo'), which can indicate the commenter actually watched the content."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: 'Que precioso!! Como dices en directo debía ser espectacular!!!' This is a short, naturally phrased compliment in Spanish that references the creator's live presentation, which leans toward genuine engagement rather than templated bot text. The language includes punctuation and a contextual detail ('en directo') that reduce but do not eliminate the chance of inauthenticity. However, the sample size (one comment) is far too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall comment authenticity or audience quality. For advertising purchase decisions, this single positive comment is mildly encouraging but insufficient: the overall assessment is cautiously low because we lack quantity, diversity, and behavioral signals (likes-to-comments ratio, timestamps, commenter profiles) needed to judge real engagement and audience fit. Recommended next steps: analyze a larger set of recent comments, inspect commenter profiles for account age/follower patterns, check like counts and view metrics, and run an audience/follower audit before making ad-buy decisions."
}
Text: 😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 55,
"fakeness_confidence": 30,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Short positive emotional reaction / expression of admiration; low-effort engagement that serves as social proof and can boost apparent popularity"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is an emoji-only positive reaction (three heart-eyes). Emoji-only replies carry very little topical or behavioral signal: they can be genuine quick reactions from real followers, habitual responses from superfans, or low-effort bot/engagement-farm output. Given only one comment, the evidence is insufficient to confidently judge authenticity or audience quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions this comment alone is weak support — it shows positive sentiment but no substantive engagement (no product-related feedback, no questions, no purchase intent). Recommended next steps: analyze a larger sample of comments (diversity, content length, conversation threads), inspect commenter accounts (follower counts, posting activity, profile completeness), check likes-to-comments ratio and timing patterns, and compare engagement on multiple posts. Without that broader context, treat this post's comment signal as low‑value for ad-buy decisions."
}
Text: Que bonito! 😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 55,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic positive/compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/engagement (short praise + emoji), likely intended to boost post metrics or show support"
}
],
"interpretation": "Single short comment \"Que bonito! 😍\" is a generic positive reaction. Such comments are common from genuine followers but are equally common from bots, engagement pods, or low-effort accounts that aim to inflate visible engagement. With only one comment to analyze, signal is weak — there is no variety in content, no question or detail that would indicate a real, interested user, and no metadata (account age, follower counts, timing) was provided to corroborate authenticity. Given these limits, I rate the comment set as moderately likely to be inauthentic (fakeness score 60) but with only medium confidence. For advertising feasibility: the comment quality suggests weak audience engagement depth; I assign an overall suitability score of 40/100 (confidence 50). Recommended next steps before buying ads: inspect a larger sample of comments, check commenter profiles for real photos/followers/activity, compare likes-to-comments ratio, review recent follower growth for spikes, and look for varied, specific comments that indicate a real engaged audience."
}
Text: Sin palabras,espectacular😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration for the post, provide social proof and positive sentiment; likely intended to praise the creator and signal approval to other viewers."
}
],
"interpretation": "The dataset contains a single comment: \"Sin palabras,espectacular😍\" — a short, positive compliment with an emoji. This is a common, low-effort appreciative response that increases visible engagement and signals favorable audience reaction. On its own it is more consistent with a genuine casual follower reaction than clearly automated text (natural language, emoji use, Spanish). However, with only one comment it is impossible to robustly assess authenticity or the broader audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects that this single message appears plausible as genuine, but confidence is limited by the tiny sample size and lack of context (commenter profile, timing, repetition across posts, like-to-follower ratios, other comments). For advertising decisions, this single positive comment is insufficient evidence of an engaged, authentic audience. Recommend additional analysis: review a larger sample of recent comments for repeated phrasing/accounts, check commenter account ages and activity, compare likes/comments vs follower count, and inspect comment timestamps for bursts that suggest inorganic activity. Based on current limited data, treat the engagement signal as weak and obtain more data before committing to an ad purchase."
}
Text: Q bonito
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short generic compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/positive feedback and provide social proof; low informational value for audience targeting."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment was provided: \"Q bonito\" (shorthand for \"Qué bonito\"/\"Que bonito\" — \"How/How very beautiful\"). This is a brief, positive, low-effort remark that serves primarily as social proof rather than offering substantive engagement. With this single data point it is difficult to assess authenticity confidently. The short, generic nature slightly increases the chance it could be automated or low-quality engagement (hence a modest fakeness score), but the language and phrasing are consistent with typical genuine user comments in Spanish/Portuguese-speaking audiences. For advertising decision-making this sample is insufficient: look at commenter account quality (follower count, activity, profile picture), distribution and diversity of comments, timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, and presence of meaningful conversations or tagged users. Based on the available information, proceed cautiously — request a larger comment sample and perform deeper engagement and follower audits before committing to ad spend."
}
Text: Fue un espectáculo
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "generic positive / praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration / positive feedback; increases visible engagement but provides little detail or social proof."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short comment is available: \"Fue un espectáculo\" (\"It was a show\" / \"It was spectacular\"). This is a generic positive remark that could come from a genuine fan, a casual viewer, or a low-effort bot/comment farm. With a single brief comment there is high uncertainty: the language and tone are consistent with normal audience praise, but the lack of detail, hashtags, emojis, or user-specific reference reduces its informational value for judging authenticity. For advertising feasibility this single data point is insufficient — it neither strongly supports nor rules out genuine engagement. Recommended next steps before purchase: examine a larger sample of comments across multiple posts, inspect commenter profiles (age, activity, follower counts, mutuals), check like-to-comment ratios and comment diversity, review temporal posting patterns, and use third-party authenticity tools or manual audits. Based on current limited evidence, treat engagement as weak-to-moderate and proceed only after a deeper authenticity and audience-quality assessment."
}
Text: Una pasada….. suerte tenemos de tener estas vistas! 😘
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 80,
"overall_score": 78,
"overall_confidence": 70,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Genuine praise / follower compliment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/appreciation for the photo/location; social approval and engagement"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment (“Una pasada….. suerte tenemos de tener estas vistas! 😘”) is a short, positive, conversational compliment in Spanish with an emoji and natural phrasing, which strongly suggests a real follower or acquaintance rather than a bot or spam account. Purpose is purely positive engagement (praise/appreciation), with no promotional language or calls to action. Fakeness is assessed low because the language is specific and informal; however this is a small sample (one comment), so the confidence is limited. For an advertising-feasibility decision, this comment alone indicates organic, positive engagement but you should evaluate a larger set of comments, commenter profiles (account age, follower counts, posting history), like-to-comment ratios, and possible patterns of generic compliments to confirm overall authenticity before purchasing advertising or collaborations."
}
Text: Couche soleil
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 50,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "short compliment / content reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express appreciation or describe the image (likely referring to a sunset), simple engagement to increase visible activity on the post."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short comment ('Couche soleil') is available. It appears to be a brief, genuine reaction to a visual (probably intended as 'coucher de soleil' = sunset) rather than a sales/affiliate message or obvious spam. Given the single data point, the risk of this comment being fake/bot-driven is low but uncertain — short generic comments can be left by both real users and low-effort bots. Overall assessment for advertising purchase: there is insufficient evidence from this single comment to judge audience quality or engagement authenticity; hence a cautious rating. Recommend analyzing a larger sample of comments, commenter account quality (profiles, follower counts, activity), timing patterns, like-to-comment ratios, language distribution, and any repetitive/promotional comment patterns before making a buy decision."
}
Text: Doy fe
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Supportive / affirmation",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Short endorsement or confirmation of the post's claim (social proof)."
},
{
"type": "Low-effort / short comment",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Minimal engagement intended to signal support without substantive interaction."
},
{
"type": "Potential bot/generic",
"count": 0,
"purpose": "Comments that match known bot patterns (repeated generic praise, emojis, links). Not observed here."
},
{
"type": "Question / critique / discussion",
"count": 0,
"purpose": "Comments that request info, offer criticism, or start discussion. Not present."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment ('Doy fe') is available. It reads as a brief Spanish-language affirmation ('I attest' / 'I vouch'), which is typically supportive and plausibly genuine. There are no obvious bot signals (no links, no repeated phrasing across multiple comments to check, no commercial spam), but with a single short comment the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. Fakeness risk is low-to-moderate (25) but confidence is limited. For advertising decisions: the comment profile shows low depth of conversation and minimal qualitative engagement, which reduces confidence in organic influence. Recommend a fuller audit before purchase: check overall likes-to-followers ratio, comment volume and diversity across multiple recent posts, timestamps and commenter account authenticity (age, followers, activity), and look for repeated identical phrases across posts. If those checks are acceptable, consider a small test campaign with close monitoring; if not, treat reach as risky."
}
Text: 😍😍😍😍😍😍 Sin palabras
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji + short praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/positive reaction and boost visible engagement (social proof). Low-effort comment that signals liking but gives no substantive feedback or purchase intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "There is only a single comment: six heart-eyes emojis followed by 'Sin palabras' ('No words'). This is a generic positive reaction that produces visible engagement but has little informational value about the audience or purchase intent. Such comments can be genuine (fans reacting enthusiastically) or low-effort/bot-generated; the short, emoji-heavy format is commonly used by both real followers and automated accounts, which is why the fakeness score is moderate rather than very high or low. Given the tiny sample size (one comment) we lack visibility into comment diversity, depth, timing, account profiles, and overall engagement rate—key signals for influencer credibility. Recommendation: before purchasing advertising, review a larger sample of comments, commenter profiles (age, follower counts, activity), like-to-comment ratio, comment timestamps for clustering, and look for repeated/similar comments across posts. Based solely on this comment the post provides weak qualitative endorsement for advertising, so proceed with caution and request additional engagement/audience evidence from the influencer."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/C8cAv0WKqW1
-
Comment ER: 0.04%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 85,
"Confidence": 75,
"Interpretation": "Interior shows multiple above-average markers: polished marble floors, large sliding glass doors with sea view, coordinated tasteful decor (framed art, plants, tray with candles), neat modern furniture — all consistent with a mid-to-premium lifestyle. Clothing is well-coordinated and no obvious low-cost branding. Not extreme luxury (no clear designer products visible), so not a full 100."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "Selfie-style mirror image with the creator centered, making eye contact with the phone camera and smiling — strong visual signal that she appears on camera. However, there is no audio/transcript or clear mouth movement in these frames to prove active speaking to camera, so confidence is moderate."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 45,
"Confidence": 45,
"Interpretation": "Groomed appearance (styled hair, makeup) and curated home-staging (candles, plants) suggest a lifestyle/appearance focus, but there are no explicit beauty tools, skincare products, treatments, or multi-step routines visible. Evidence for a dedicated beauty/self-care identity is weak/ambiguous from this single frame."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "No visible low-cost retailer logos, tags, packaging, or promotional material for Shein/Temu/AliExpress/Lidl/etc. in the frames — absence of low-end retail advertising is clear."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising or branded pillows visible in the provided frames; no Sleep & Glow or other pillow promotion detected."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 75,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content is visible in the provided frames, so there is no sign of mixed or inconsistent ad categories. Given limited frames, confidence is moderate-high."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "No advertisements are present to evaluate authenticity. In absence of ads, default to full score for authenticity but with reduced confidence due to lack of advertising evidence to analyze."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "No advertising elements, product shots with price/codes, or sponsor tags are visible in the provided frames — indicates no advertising present in these images."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "No captions, spoken excerpts, or stepwise demonstrations are available in these frames to show explanation, cause/effect reasoning, or structured argumentation. Insufficient evidence to claim structured thinking; score low."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "Frames provide visual lifestyle cues only; there are no visible educational captions, ingredient breakdowns, clinical environments, or specialized demonstrations that would indicate advanced or niche knowledge. Evidence for knowledge depth is minimal."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 30,
"Confidence": 40,
"Interpretation": "Visual age cues place the blogger in an approximate early‑to‑mid 30s range. The frame does not provide definitive age markers to confirm over-35 status; likelihood of over‑35 is low to moderate but uncertain."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 30,
"Interpretation": "No speech, captions, or argumentation available to assess cognitive clarity, vocabulary, or analytical ability. The posed, composed image suggests some social media literacy and presentation skills, but this is a weak proxy for intelligence — score neutral with low confidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 20,
"Confidence": 25,
"Interpretation": "There are aesthetic signals (tasteful home, self-care hints) but no textual or verbal evidence of stable personal principles, explicit first-person value statements, or filtering of audience. Insufficient evidence to claim a strong 'own truth' transmission."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 70,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "The subject is smiling, posing confidently with an open posture in a bright, sunlit environment — visual cues consistent with positive energy and enthusiasm. Without video/audio the emotional tone is inferred from facial expression and posture, so confidence is moderate."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 60,
"Confidence": 45,
"Interpretation": "Confident pose, direct eye contact with camera and a warm smile indicate personal charm and on-frame presence. Inspiring ability cannot be firmly assessed from a single still; evidence supports moderate charisma."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 85,
"Interpretation": "No visible credentials, professional environment, medical/clinic setup, or specialist tools (cosmetology/derm/makeup studio) are present. No basis to identify the blogger as an expert in cosmetology, dermatology, surgery, makeup artistry, or fashion."
}
}
Comments (10)
Text: 😍😍😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Quick expression of admiration/approval; generic engagement that increases visible activity but provides no purchase intent or detailed feedback."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment is four heart-eyes emojis (😍😍😍😍). Emoji-only responses are low-information: they indicate a positive reaction but lack specificity about product interest, intent to purchase, or real audience connection. Such comments are commonly left by genuine followers as quick reactions, but they are also typical of low-effort bot comments, engagement pods, or users seeking visibility rather than offering meaningful endorsement. With only one comment available, the signal is weak and inconclusive. For advertising purchase decisions this comment alone should not be considered strong evidence of an engaged, monetizable audience. Recommended next steps: review volume and variety of comments across multiple posts, check comment timestamps and repeat patterns, analyze commenter profiles for authenticity (real photos, posting history), and measure overall engagement rate (likes, saves, shares) and audience demographics before deciding."
}
Text: Preciosa!😂
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration for the creator/content and provide lightweight engagement (social affirmation)."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one short comment was provided: \"Preciosa!😂\". This is a generic positive compliment with an emoji — typical of genuine follower reactions but also the kind of low-effort text used by bots or paid accounts. Given the single example, I assess low likelihood of deliberate fakery (score 20) but with limited confidence because sample size is too small to detect patterns (repetition, timing, account quality). For advertising-feasibility this single comment provides almost no reliable signal about audience quality or authentic engagement. Recommendation: obtain a larger sample of comments, commenter usernames and profiles, overall comment count, likes-to-followers ratio, and temporal patterns before making a buying decision."
}
Text: 😍😍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 30,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express appreciation/positive reaction; low informational value. Could be a genuine quick reaction from a follower or a generic/bot-style engagement."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single comment is available: two heart-eyes emojis. This is an emoji-only engagement, which is common and low-information — it indicates positive sentiment but does not demonstrate meaningful audience interest or purchase intent. Emoji-only comments are frequently genuine casual reactions but are also commonly produced by bots or paid-engagement services when they appear repeatedly across many posts. Given the tiny sample, the fakeness assessment leans slightly toward low-to-moderate risk of inauthenticity (score 30) but with low confidence because there is insufficient data. For advertising decisions, this single comment is not evidence of high-quality engagement; recommend reviewing a larger sample of comments across multiple recent posts, the pattern of similar emoji comments, like-to-comment ratios, follower growth history, and audience demographics or running a bot-detection scan before committing advertising spend."
}
Text: Es ideal !!!👏👏👏❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Positive compliment / emoji reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and support; provide social proof and boost visible engagement (likes/comments)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment \"Es ideal !!!👏👏👏❤️\" is a brief, positive endorsement using exclamations and heart/applause emojis. This pattern is typical of genuine follower praise but is also commonly used by low-effort accounts or paid commenters. Given only one comment, there's insufficient data to judge the overall authenticity or audience quality. The low fakeness score reflects that the content reads naturally and context-appropriate, but confidence is moderate because a single short comment is not definitive. For advertising decisions, rely on additional signals: overall comment volume and variety, commenter account quality (profiles, history, follower counts), like-to-comment ratio, timing patterns, and whether comments reflect real conversations or specific product details. Based on this single comment, the post shows minimal but positive engagement; do not consider it strong evidence of a high-quality, authentic audience on its own."
}
Text: Bonita 😍❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 25,
"fakeness_confidence": 60,
"overall_score": 40,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment / positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Short praise expressed with emoji (affective engagement). Raises visible engagement but gives little information about purchase intent or audience quality; common from genuine followers and also common in automated/mass-comment patterns."
}
],
"interpretation": "Single comment: \"Bonita 😍❤️\" (Spanish, \"Pretty\") — clearly positive sentiment. Because the comment is brief, generic and emoji-rich it has low informational value for assessing purchase intent or audience quality. The pattern can be organic (a real follower praising the post) but is also a common form used by bots or mass-engagement services; with only one example the evidence is weak. Recommendation: do not rely on this single comment for a buying decision. Collect more comments across several posts and analyze commenter account profiles (age, activity, follower/following ratio, repeated generic comments), comment diversity (questions, brand mentions, long-form feedback), timing patterns, and engagement rates before concluding ad feasibility."
}
Text: Que bonita Irene
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 20,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 25,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Compliment / Praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/affection for the poster (social proof and positive engagement)."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment 'Que bonita Irene' is a short, positive compliment in Spanish directed at the person named Irene. This format (direct, name-inclusive praise) tends to be more likely genuine than generic bot comments, but it is still too little information to strongly judge authenticity. With only one comment available we cannot assess patterns (repetition, multiple similar messages, commenter account signals) that would indicate coordinated or fake engagement. Therefore I rate overall fakeness low-to-moderate (20/100) but with limited confidence (40/100).\n\nOverall advertising-feasibility assessment is low (30/100) and low-confidence (25/100) because a single complimentary comment does not demonstrate consistent, engaged, authentic audience behavior required for reliable influencer advertising. To improve the assessment, gather more data: total number of comments and likes, list of commenters and their follower counts, commenter activity (real profiles vs. newly created accounts), comment timing patterns, repetition of phrases across posts, and comment-to-follower engagement ratio. If subsequent analysis shows many unique, active profiles leaving substantive comments, the suitability for ads would increase."
}
Text: Estupenda
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 60,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 25,
"overall_confidence": 40,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "generic compliment / low-effort positive",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express simple positive sentiment; increases visible engagement but provides little information about genuine interest or purchase intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only a single short comment ('Estupenda') is available. This is a one-word, language-appropriate compliment that could come from a genuine follower or from automated/low-effort commenters. Short compliments are common both among real supporters and bot/engagement-farm activity, so its provenance is ambiguous. Given the lack of additional contextual signals (commenter profile, timing, frequency of similar comments across posts, like-to-comment ratio, diversity of commenters), treat this as weak evidence of authentic, high-quality engagement. For advertising-buy decisions, this isolated comment should not be taken as a positive signal on its own. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter account(s) for follower counts and posting history, check for many similar one-word comments across the influencer's posts, review overall engagement rates and audience demographics. Based on the single comment, advertising feasibility score is low (25/100) with moderate uncertainty."
}
Text: 🤍
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 40,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 35,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji_reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "brief positive engagement / acknowledgment (low-information signal of approval or simple interaction)"
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is present and it is a single white-heart emoji (🤍). Emoji-only comments are common and can come from genuine followers as quick positive reactions, but they are also frequently produced by engagement-bot networks or mass-likers because they require no effort or context. With a single, low-content comment there is extremely limited evidence to assess authenticity or audience quality. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this data point is insufficient: it neither shows meaningful audience interaction nor verifies real, interested followers. Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter account(s) for follower/following ratios and activity, check the post's like count and timing, review comment patterns across multiple recent posts, and analyze overall engagement rate and follower growth history before making a purchase decision."
}
Text: Que guapa amor
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 35,
"overall_score": 35,
"overall_confidence": 30,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Generic compliment / praise",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration and provide social proof; short supportive engagement that boosts visible positivity of the post. Could come from a genuine follower or a low-effort paid/bot comment."
}
],
"interpretation": "Only one comment is available: \"Que guapa amor\" (Spanish: \"So pretty/lovely, love\"). This is a generic, positive compliment that increases apparent engagement and social proof but carries little informational value about audience quality or purchase intent. The phrase's affectionate tone could indicate a genuine follower or acquaintance, but it is also consistent with low-effort bot/paid-comment behavior — there is insufficient context (no commenter profile, timestamps, like counts, or multiple diverse comments) to be confident. Given the single, generic comment, the risk of inauthentic engagement is non-negligible; the comment alone is weak evidence of a real, engaged target audience for advertising. Recommended next steps before buying ads: inspect the commenter profile(s) (followers, posting history, language consistency), review multiple recent posts for comment diversity and patterns (repeated identical comments across posts), check overall follower-to-engagement ratio and like counts, and look for comments showing product-specific reactions or questions. Based on the lone comment, I rate fakeness moderate (40/100) with low-to-moderate confidence and overall suitability for advertising as low–moderate (35/100) with low confidence; additional data could substantially change these assessments."
}
Text: 😍😍😍😍 Preciosaaaaaa
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 40,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "Short enthusiastic praise (emoji + elongated compliment)",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express admiration/positive reaction; boost engagement and social proof; no product-specific endorsement or purchase intent."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment ('😍😍😍😍 Preciosaaaaaa') is a generic, positive reaction likely from a follower or casual viewer. It signals positive sentiment but provides no substantive feedback, intent to purchase, or product-specific information. Because it's short, highly generic and could be produced by either a genuine fan or a low-effort bot/engagement farm, there is moderate uncertainty about authenticity (fakeness score 40, confidence 45). For ad-buy decisions this comment alone is weak evidence of meaningful audience engagement or conversion potential; overall suitability is low (score 30, confidence 50). Recommended next steps: inspect the commenter’s profile(s) for activity/age/follower count, check diversity and depth of other comments on the post and recent posts, compare likes-to-comments ratio, and look for repeated templated comments to better assess authenticity and audience quality."
}
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/C8QUT6Nqp6N
-
Comment ER: 0.01%
Analysis
{
"income_level": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 15,
"Interpretation": "Single static frame shows a neutral beach scene and a short Spanish motivational caption ('Este día no volverá nunca más / Vive'). There are no home, brand, clothing, vehicle, or travel indicators that reliably point to a premium or low‑income lifestyle. Because evidence is essentially absent, I assign a neutral mid score with low confidence."
},
"talking_head": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "No person appears in the provided frame and no face/mouth/motion cues are visible, so there is no evidence of the blogger speaking on camera."
},
"beauty_alignment": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 95,
"Interpretation": "There are no beauty or self‑care products, devices, routines, or relevant visual cues in the frame. No signal ties this content to beauty/self‑care."
},
"low_end_ads_absence": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "The frame contains no visible advertising or logos, and specifically no low‑cost retailer brands (AliExpress, Shein, Temu, Lidl, Aldi, etc.). Confidence is moderate because this conclusion is based on a single image."
},
"pillow_ads_constraint": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "No pillow advertising or branded pillow imagery is present in the frame. Given only one frame, this absence is moderately confident."
},
"ads_focus_consistency": {
"Score": 100,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "No advertising is visible, so there is no evidence of mixed or inconsistent ad categories in the provided frames. Confidence is moderate because of limited sample size."
},
"sales_authenticity": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 10,
"Interpretation": "No advertising content or explanatory captions are present to evaluate authenticity, usage details, or personal testimony. Score left neutral due to lack of evidence and very low confidence."
},
"frequency_of_advertising": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 70,
"Interpretation": "In the provided frame there is no advertising present. Given the single-frame sample, I assign 'no advertising' with moderate-to-high confidence for this sample."
},
"structured_thinking": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 60,
"Interpretation": "The frame contains a short motivational sentence, not a structured argument or explanation. There is no evidence of multi-step reasoning, examples, or cause‑and‑effect exposition; score is low with moderate confidence."
},
"knowledge_depth": {
"Score": 10,
"Confidence": 65,
"Interpretation": "No specialist content or informative material is visible—only a brief inspirational line—so there is no sign of knowledge beyond mass/overused ideas. Low score with moderate confidence."
},
"age_over_30": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 1,
"Interpretation": "No person is visible in the frame, so age cannot be inferred. Neutral score with extremely low confidence."
},
"intelligence": {
"Score": 50,
"Confidence": 2,
"Interpretation": "There is insufficient evidence (no spoken or written substantive content beyond a short caption) to assess cognitive or communicative intelligence. Neutral score with very low confidence."
},
"personal_values": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "The caption ('This day will never return again — Live') suggests a value placed on presence/living in the moment, but this is a single, short statement without consistent first‑person positioning or developed principles. Low–moderate score with medium confidence."
},
"enthusiasm": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 50,
"Interpretation": "The single-word imperative 'Vive' is positive and encouraging, but there are no expressive facial or vocal cues to indicate sustained enthusiasm. Moderate uncertainty."
},
"charisma": {
"Score": 40,
"Confidence": 45,
"Interpretation": "The message is mildly inspirational, which can be a charisma signal, but without a person, delivery, or recurring content it is not possible to judge ability to inspire. Low–moderate score with below‑average confidence."
},
"expert_status": {
"Score": 0,
"Confidence": 90,
"Interpretation": "No indicators of professional expertise (titles, clinic settings, technical demonstrations, product breakdowns) are present in the frame. Strong evidence absence for expert status."
}
}
Comments (2)
Text: Una frase que me acompaña siempre: la vida es ahora
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 15,
"fakeness_confidence": 65,
"overall_score": 45,
"overall_confidence": 50,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "personal/reflective",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Express personal sentiment and relate to the post; supportive/inspirational engagement"
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment provided ('Una frase que me acompaña siempre: la vida es ahora') reads as a genuine, first-person reflective remark. It is not promotional, contains no links or hashtags, and is not a short generic phrase (e.g., 'nice' or emoji-only), which lowers the probability of being bot-generated or fake. However, this is only one comment — the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about the overall authenticity of the influencer's audience. For advertising-feasibility decisions, this comment is a positive sign (meaningful engagement) but insufficient on its own: examine volume of comments, comment variety, commenter profiles (followers, activity), timing patterns, and like-to-comment ratios to assess audience quality more reliably."
}
Text: 👏👏👏❤️
Analysis: {
"fakeness_score": 35,
"fakeness_confidence": 45,
"overall_score": 30,
"overall_confidence": 45,
"comment_types": [
{
"type": "emoji-only positive reaction",
"count": 1,
"purpose": "Expresses approval/encouragement (applause + heart). Serves to boost visible engagement but provides no substantive feedback; can be posted by a genuine follower, low-effort human, or automated/bot account."
}
],
"interpretation": "The single comment (\"👏👏👏❤️\") is a generic positive emoji reaction. Emoji-only comments are common, but they are ambiguous: they increase visible engagement metrics while offering no qualitative signal about audience interest or intent to purchase. With only this single comment it's not possible to reliably determine authenticity — the comment could be genuine or low-effort/bot-driven. For ad-buy decisions, this comment is low-quality signal. Recommend collecting more data before deciding: full comment set across recent posts, commenter account quality (follower counts, activity, profile age), repetition patterns (same emoji comments repeatedly), like-to-comment ratios, and engagement rate trends. Based solely on this comment, I would not consider the post's comment section strong evidence of an engaged, authentic audience."
}
|