We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.90 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.90, updated 2026-09-14.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Aggressive ad load
Too Much Advertising — I upgraded to one level, and lo and behold I keep getting messages to upgrade further, which I find particularly annoying! I just want to play golf and get yardages and fill in a computerized scorecard! Before I was…
Too many Ads — I have owned this application since it was beginning, and I was forced to upgrade to the newer model. Now EVERY time you open the app, it ask you for a monthly subscription. I’ve asked tech-support why I can’t get around…
Add — Why too many ads are now popping up….. way too many!!
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
Too many Ads — I have owned this application since it was beginning, and I was forced to upgrade to the newer model. Now EVERY time you open the app, it ask you for a monthly subscription. I’ve asked tech-support why I can’t get around…
Spam — I tried this again after about a year, it was nothing but pop ups trying to get me to pay money. Once I finished my round a really spammy ad popped up saying my iPhone had a virus. It was poorly done so I obviously didn’t click on…
Battery killer and annoying ads — Been using this for two years. You need to have at least 80% battery to play 9 holes. Additionally it nags you to upgrade four times every time you play 9 holes. I did once try the upgraded version for…
How the automated analysis works
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.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.