Retro Style Coloring Games 2026 is an adult coloring book that offers a wide…
PIXELSPARK TECHNOLOGY LIMITEDSome warnings 14 users report an aggressive ad load. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 400 reviews, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 26 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 1.47.259 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 1.47.259, updated 2026-08-05.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Retro Style Coloring Games 2026 is an adult coloring book that offers a wide range of vintage, retro and classic style wallpaper, etc. In this app, you can easily color by number, and this app aims to provide a fun and fancy color-by-number experience for adults. Don't forget to share your drawings on Instagram and Facebook!
In the Retro Style Coloring Games 2026 coloring book, you can enjoy drawings in various categories, such as vintage coloring, old-school coloring, retro coloring, classic coloring and other vintage style paintings. Respect! You can also share your drawings on Instagram and Facebook!
Our application:
Retro Style Coloring Games 2026 is an adult coloring book that contains a wide variety of exquisite pictures. You can color and create your own Retro Style Coloring Games 2026 wallpaper.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Aggressive ad load: raised by 14 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 29 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
A great app with awesome picture graphics but a couple of negative issues. Issue 1. Too many ads which deplete your high speed data which you can't play the game without high speed data or WiFi network connection. Issue 2. Inability to…
I get that ads pay for games. What I won't tolerate are ads that continue for an undisclosed or infinite amount of time with no end in sight after clicked. If I could see how much longer you're going to force me to watch a Lumi ad (that I…
This was a great app. However, recent ads have completely ruined the fun. The "Amazon" ads especially. So, I am removing.
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
No package has been scanned for this app, so nothing is published about what it ships. That is an absence of evidence, not a finding.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 1.47.259 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 1.47.259, updated 2026-08-05.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
No release notes were provided for this version.
Appworthy
retro-style-coloring-gamesAssessed 2026-10-26 from 400 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.