The most difficult moment when reading a review (experience) is when **the text you were reading disappears (complete deletion) or only part of it remains and the context is broken (partial deletion)**. In fact, the sex review site ‘フーコレ (Pukore)’ has a separate page **「体験談 (Kuchikomi) no 削除履歴」(Experience deletion history)**, and at the top of the page, there is a message to the effect of: > **「削除の多いお店 and girl's experience are perfect for sakura sake, please take a look!」** In other words, it is known that the deletion history is closer to **a warning light (⚠️) that you should refer to when interpreting reviews** rather than a ‘correct answer’. Below is a guide to **without exaggeration** how to read ‘what deletion means’ based on the patterns displayed on the deletion history screen. ---
## ✅ 1) What does the ‘deletion history’ show? The deletion history page lists items that appear to be the location (e.g. **Fukuoka, 熊本, 広島, 滋賀, 佐賀, 山口**, etc.), store name/cast name, along with the date (e.g. **January 15, 2026**). Each item is then followed by one of the following: - **Completely deleted by the store**: **Completely deleted** by the store - **Partially deleted** by the store: **Partially deleted** by the store This record shows that ‘a review was deleted’, but ⚠️**does not determine the reason for deletion (false/violation of regulations/privacy/dispute, etc.).** Therefore, it is always safer to interpret it **conservatively**. ---
## 🔥 2) ‘Complete deletion’ and ‘partial deletion’ have different feelings. Even with the same deletion, the information loss felt by the user may be different. ### **Complete deletion (完全削除)** - The review itself is recorded as having disappeared in its entirety. - From the user's perspective, since **the verification material becomes 0**, we often see reviews saying that 'judgment should be reserved' when such records are repeated for the same store/same person. ### **Partial deletion** - It is assumed that part of the sentence has been covered up or a specific section has been deleted (only 'partial' is indicated on the page notation). - When the context is broken, interpretation becomes difficult, and it is known as a **case where it becomes more difficult to conclude whether it is good or bad**. ---
## ✅ 3) Checklist when viewing 'many/few' deletions The deletion history page has a long list of items by date, and multiple records can be displayed in a row in a specific region (e.g. **Fukuoka**). However, rather than concluding that 'there is a problem' based on this alone, it is safer to **divide the pattern** and look at it as shown below. 1) **Does the same store name repeat** - Example: Certain names such as **姫1, Mrs.姫1, Ocean, クラブアリュール, 艶ョイ, CELEB FACE FUKUOKA** appear repeatedly on the list over multiple dates. - The repetition itself is true, but ⚠️the reason for the repeated appearance is unknown, so it is safe to only **“It seems to have a frequent deletion history”**. 2) **Does the same person (name) appear multiple times** - Example: There are sections where **双葉 とわ** is repeatedly marked as completely deleted over multiple dates. - In this case, it is difficult to determine the cause, and it is better to just check that **there may be a lack of ‘original text’ to use for review judgment**. 3) **Does the complete deletion rate seem particularly high** - If ‘complete deletion’ is frequently seen in the same period, there may be fewer reviews left from the user’s perspective, which may increase **information bias**. ---
## ⚠️ 4) Why it is dangerous to conclude that ‘If there are a lot of deletions, it is necessarily a bad place?’ Deletion history is clearly a reference indicator, but **conclusions are prohibited** for the following reasons. - **The deletion subject is indicated as ‘店舗(store)’**, and the background (regulations/disputes/expression issues/personal information, etc.) is not disclosed. - **Partial deletion** may actually be the result of only organizing sensitive information (this is only an estimate, and cannot be confirmed as fact). - Conversely, **complete deletion** cannot be determined to mean falsehood. Therefore, it is safer to draw this conclusion. ✅ It is safe to use the deletion history not as “good or bad” but as a **device to check whether ‘there is sufficient evidence’ when reading reviews**. ---
## ✅ 5) How to use deletion history in ‘practice’ (review interpretation routine) Below is an easy routine to apply when reading reviews after viewing the deletion history page. ### Step 1: **Check for deletion notation** - First, check whether **there is a recent record of complete deletion/partial deletion** in reviews related to the store/person in question. ### Step 2: **Check the ‘specificity’ of remaining reviews** - As the original text decreases due to deletion, it becomes more important that the remaining reviews are **specific (clear expression of time/situation/service scope)**. ### Step 3: **Do not jump to conclusions based on just one or two reviews** - If there is a deletion history, **relying on a single review is dangerous**, especially since the number of reviews may be small or the context may be cut off. ### Step 4: **Allow withholding judgment as an option** - ⚠️If deletions are repeated and there is insufficient information, **withholding** may be the most reasonable option instead of a ‘good/bad’ conclusion. --- ## 🔥 6) Summary of ‘notation style’ confirmed on this page (deletion history) - Page name: **Deletion history of 体験談(クチコミ)** - Instruction text (summary): **Do not blindly believe and be discerning** in cases of many deletions - Notation format: Date → Region → Store/person → **Complete deletion/Partial deletion** Examples include the following (quoted as is). - **Fukuoka: Hime1** Experiences of multiple people **completely deleted** - **Kumamoto: Juerie Club** Experiences of a specific person **partially deleted** - **Hiroshima: Wife Dojo Association** Experiences of a specific person **partially deleted** - **Saga: Royal Express Saga store** Experiences of a specific person **completely deleted** Since the records continue in this way, it is known that it is safer for users to use it as a ✅**auxiliary indicator for checking review reliability** rather than making a definitive judgment based on the “deletion history” itself. --- ## ✅ Conclusion: Deletion history is not a “conclusion” but a “starting point for verification” The deletion history page shows the fact that “these reviews have been deleted,” and the site also conveys the message **do not blindly trust those with a lot of deletions**. However, since the reason for deletion is not provided, please carefully consider the **quantity/specificity/consistency** of remaining reviews when making your final decision. Original source: https://www.fucolle.com/exp/hist.php
