DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Spades - Classic Card Games
Big Cake · Lifestyle

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 499 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High1 signal source499 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 1.0.31 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.0.33, updated 2026-09-23.

The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 1.0.31, not the version now listed on the store.

Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:

Version 1.0.33 · 2026-09-23

No release notes were provided for this version.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

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.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Aggressive ad load: raised by 40 distinct reviewers (8.0% of 499 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Reviewers repeatedly report that the app is not what its advertising showed. We never see the ad creative itself, so nothing we collect can corroborate or refute this — it is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
What we saw: Misleading advertising: raised by 8 distinct reviewers (1.6% of 499 reviews scanned)

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

UPDATE COMPLETELY RUINED THE GAME! Now there's NEW ADS that take you directly to Amazon and you can't get out of the Ad! If you want to play a quick game it's impossible! Because of these extremely long 60/90 second Ads and getting…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-02

Has the most basic spades game with no options for setup other than normal or expert. it's absolutely bloated with ads that completely ruins the experience. it also has completely unrealistic dealing where you end up with bids all over…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-04-30

Decent app, however, forcing and ad after every single round ruins the experience. 90% of those ads force you into the app store before you can go back into this app, close the ad, and finally play the next round. Uninstalled

1★ · Google Play · 2026-06-23

Reports that the ads misrepresent the app

no Adds was the add for this game. I haven't made 2 hands of 1 game and I have had 2 adds interupt play and a banner across the bottom of my phone. this game has false advertising.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-08-04

False advertising. Ad said the game had no ads. It has many ads.

2★ · Google Play · 2026-06-04

says no ads but there is all thru the game I could not even see a final score because ad pop up if you try skip it takes you to your browser. uninstall

1★ · Google Play · 2026-06-27

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 1.0.311 independent signal499 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure.