Fakespot Review Analyzer Report
Analyzed on:Mar 19, 2018
This analysis is quite old, would you like to reanalyze?
There are indications of unreliable/low quality reviews. You be the judge.
Analysis overview
Our engine has analyzed and discovered that 72.4% of the reviews are reliable.
This product had a total of 1830 reviews on Mar 19 2018.
Our engine detects that in general the reviewers have a neutral sentiment.
Interesting tidbit: the most used word by reviewers is good.
How are reviewers describing this item?
good, great, best, clean and cheap.
good, great, best, clean and cheap.
Our engine has detected that Amazon has deleted and scrubbed reviews from this listing. We approximate total reviews deleted to be 1137.
Our engine has profiled the reviewer patterns and has determined that there may be deception involved.
Our engine has determined that the review content quality is low.
Reviews summary
Who doesn't love qtips and of course i put them in my ears ear sticks rock i mean it's a q-tip, so if it fails at that then everything as the human race knows it, is at an end
Who doesn't love qtips and of course i put them in my ears ear sticks rock i mean it's a q-tip, so if it fails at that then everything as the human race knows it, is at an end
Very strong clean sweep the best on the market cleans your ears good you know what it does hahait does its job so i'm satisfied they are q tips, what can you say
Very strong clean sweep the best on the market cleans your ears good you know what it does hahait does its job so i'm satisfied they are q tips, what can you say
Review Count
Loading...
Price Track
Loading...
Unreliable Reviewer
scott olson
Reviewer Analysis:
scott olson
Reviewer Analysis:
✓ Overwhelming amount of positive reviews
✓ Has done a total of 6 reviews for the same company
✓ Extremely positive reviews for a singular company
✓ Repeats reviews text
✓ Reviews content are of a poor quality
✓ Correlation with other fake reviewers' profile data and language.
✓ Large number of reviews created on the same date.
Unreliable Reviewer
Winho
Reviewer Analysis:
Winho
Reviewer Analysis:
✓ Overwhelming amount of positive reviews
✓ Language utilizes many superlatives or is suspiciously positive
✓ Repeats reviews text
✓ Reviews content are of a poor quality
✓ Correlation with other fake reviewers' profile data and language.
✓ Large number of reviews created on the same date.
Unreliable Reviewer
Neena
Reviewer Analysis:
Neena
Reviewer Analysis:
✓ Overwhelming amount of positive reviews
✓ Correlation with other fake reviewers' profile data and language.
✓ Large number of reviews created on the same date.
[["good", 29], ["great", 22], ["product", 15], ["q-tips", 13], ["price", 12], ["best", 11], ["brand", 11], ["ears", 10], ["clean", 8], ["ear", 8], ["value", 6], ["cheap", 6], ["love", 6], ["cleaning", 6], ["buy", 5], ["enough", 4], ["other", 4], ["cotton", 4], ["far", 4], ["say", 4], ["quality", 4], ["better", 4], ["well", 3], ["expected", 3], ["about", 3], ["brands", 3], ["tips", 3], ["q", 3], ["job", 3], ["strong", 3], ["q-tip", 3], ["excellent", 3], ["sure", 3], ["things", 2], ["they're", 2], ["reason", 2], ["long", 2], ["right", 2], ["company", 2], ["work", 2], ["priced", 2], ["money", 2], ["uses", 2], ["many", 2], ["described", 2], ["flimsy", 2], ["awesome", 2], ["works", 2], ["ones", 2], ["knock", 2], ["every", 2], ["tip", 2], ["generic", 2], ["mean", 2], ["sticks", 2], ["put", 2], ["fast", 2], ["qtip", 2], ["how", 2], ["know", 2], ["pretty", 2], ["applying", 2], ["back", 2], ["qtips", 2], ["years", 1]]
