DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Trivia Star: Trivia Games Quiz
Super Lucky Games LLC · Games

What’s the catch? Aggressive ad load — reported by 137 users.

Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

1 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: Medium3 signal sources504 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-05
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 1.421 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.421, updated 2026-09-30.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

The catch list 1

Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
Reported by 137 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Raised by 137 distinct reviewers — 27.2% of the 504 reviews scanned on this store leg (App Store).

Context 1

Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.

Cheapest and priciest options are far apart
MeasuredPublished as context — deliberately not a charge · from the store listingview evidence
The disclosed in-app purchases span an unusually wide price range. Published as context: the cheapest and priciest items may be different kinds of product entirely, so the spread alone deducts nothing.
What we saw: In-app purchases run from USD 0.99 to USD 19.99 — a 20x spread across 10 items

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.

From the store listing: Usable without an account
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the store privacy disclosure.view evidence
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
What we saw: The store privacy disclosure (10 entries) links no contact details or identifiers to the user — consistent with an app that does not require an account. Self-reported by the developer.
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 5 distinct reviewers (1.0% of 504 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

Great games - ads are nuts — Great game but there is an ad after every question. It is so annoying. I love to play but the ads are too much.

3★ · App Store · 2026-07-18

The ads — The ads are actually unbelievable unbearable. I got this app to play with my siblings and literally the questions are way too easy and there are so many ads. I have to watch one more ad. I think I might lose my mind. I’ll click…

1★ · App Store · 2026-07-07

Just ok — The actual game seems fun. However, the ad length and frequency make it nearly unplayable. For every 3 questions I answered, I was forced to watch at least a minute long ad. Between the easy questions to start, with promise of…

1★ · App Store · 2026-06-17

Reports that the ads misrepresent the app

No ads?? — Game says no ads but that’s a lie

1★ · App Store · 2026-07-26

Fake sad — This game is nothing like the ads. The game I downloaded was supposed to be 190’s trivia, I’ve played 40 levels and 0 questions were about 1970’s. Also game looks nothing like advertised. There are no pictures just questions…

1★ · App Store · 2025-05-15

Trivia Star — The only complaint I have is the ad shows pictures of family shows and your supposed to guess which show it is but this game is nothing like the ad. You’ve deceived people to download the game. You deceived me.

4★ · App Store · 2024-09-04

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells

From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.

Subscriptions1
VIP Subscription WeeklyWeekly$3.99
Ad removal1
Remove Ads 4Term not stated$4.99
One-off packs8
Gems Pack 1Pack$0.99
Piggy Bank 1Pack$0.99
Gems Pack 3Pack$4.99
Gems Pack 4Pack$9.99
Gems Pack 2Pack$2.99
Piggy Bank 2Pack$1.99
Gems Pack 5Pack$19.99
Coin Pack 2Pack$2.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.

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 2026-10-05 Version analyzed: 1.4213 independent signals504 reviews scannedConfidence: MediumNot 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.