Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 214 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 1.6.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.6.0, updated 2026-08-18.
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
to many ads. you get a card to the top and you have to sit though an ad to keep playing. every step you do makes ADS. I'm pretty sick of it really. apart from that it's a good game so I will bare with it
The adds are too many and too long. So annoying. Seriously spent more time watching adds than playing the game. Literally. I timed it.
am uninstalling this game, drowning in ads. I timed it to see 7 ads in 1.49minutes. unplayable due to all the endless ads. Don't waste your time in this. if I could give zero stars I would.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
I was really disappointed that the advertisement for the Layout of the game is Not the Same as the Game. 😔 The game itself has some nice features and extra that some of the other solitaire game apps don't have. The only reason I'm giving…
not what was advertised the layout of the game looked very different and its the only reason I downloaded. I love solitaire and I'm always looking for new styles and versions of the game. this is solitaire, regular old game and I've got…
NOTHING LIKE THE AD!! Why in the world would you make an ad about a game that is totally different than the one this is?!?! This is false advertising and stupid! You should be ashamed of yourselves!
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports 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.