DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Tiles In Hole: Black Hole Game
LIHUHU PTE. LTD. · Games

We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.

Nothing unfair corroborated · unauditedConfidence: High3 signal sources270 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 1.21 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.22, updated 2026-10-01.

The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 1.21, not the version now listed on the store.

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

Version 1.22 · 2026-10-01
- Improved performance for smoother gameplay. - Bug fixes and enhancements for a better experience. Download the latest version now and have fun!

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 26 distinct reviewers (9.6% of 270 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 13 distinct reviewers (4.8% of 270 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

TOO MANY ADS — I paid $8 for this game & LOVE the game play. However, don’t waste your money. There are so many ads, it’s miserable.

2★ · App Store · 2026-09-08

Fun but SO many ads — I love the concept of the game and it is addicting but there are WAY too many ads. There are ads after each level. AND during the middle of the level. You have to pay $8 to get rid of ads.

3★ · App Store · 2026-08-05

Too many ads — The amount of ads is ridiculous compared to other games. Point should be to want ppl to continue playing after paid rewards is complete. I’m playing to get rewards then quitting.

1★ · App Store · 2026-07-29

Reports that the ads misrepresent the app

false advertising — Game looked nothing like how it was advertised, sucks terribly, super boring with lame quality, there is a billion versions of this game that are way better. would honestly rate this a zero if I could.

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-21

WARNING: this isn’t what is advertised. NAKED false advertising — I just passed level 1350 and I know another player that is over 1750. You will NEVER see the content they show on their “game screen photos” with the huge, towering tiles…

1★ · App Store · 2026-06-11

😡 — YOUR FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS ARE PISSING ME OFF!!!!

1★ · App Store · 2026-06-04

How the automated analysis works

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

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.

 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: 1.213 independent signals270 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.