I don't mean in the algorithm itself, I mean in your evaluation of the algorithm, where you also don't do so equivalently for recall (or don't report on recall).
Evaluate your algorithm thusly: If it made a hit, it's a grooming true positive unless its extraordinary undeniably a false positive. Absent any ground truth data you just don't evaluate recall, of if you have any test data it's only a false-negative if it's undeniably abuse. Benefit of doubt always goes to the algorithm. All hail the algorithm. All hail.
No, it's easy to achieve high recall when you define a hit very broadly. Precision will come down starkly.