MMY artwork vs data

The install listing shows five screenshots. All five are coin pusher posters. They contain rupee amounts. This page explains why those amounts are artwork, and why a review that quoted them as data would be making the numbers up.

What the posters are

A poster is an argument in picture form. These ones show a coin pusher cabinet, a person at the cabinet, cash on the glass, and short lines of text: a welcome line, a winner line, an invitation line. One of them lays out rows that look like a withdrawal list, with rupee figures and player names set in the same type as the rest of the design.

That last poster is the dangerous one, because it imitates a record. A record has a source. A poster has a designer. The rupee figures sit inside the image the way a price sits inside a shop hoarding: they are there to be seen, not to be audited. Reading a figure off a poster and printing it on a review site does not promote it to a measurement. It copies artwork into a context where readers expect facts.

A number becomes data when it has a source, a date, and a way for a second person to check it. A number inside a poster has none of the three.

Why this review quotes none of them

The policy is short. This site does not print the rupee amounts from the posters, does not print the player names from the posters, and does not describe any of it as a payout, a bonus, or a result. The images themselves are shown on the home page so a reader can see the kind of picture involved, with captions that say they are posters.

There is a second reason beyond honesty. Pages that copy poster figures into their own text train readers to trust the next page that does the same. If one review says a player took home a specific sum, the next review can invent a larger one and look just as documented. Refusing the whole category is the only line that stays sharp. The claims versus file page applies the same line to the rating and the download count: a figure the seller prints, with no source, stays a claim.

What a real payout record would need

Suppose someone wanted to publish a payout figure and have it be checkable. The bar is not high, but it is specific.

• A source that is not the poster and not the page selling the app. A bank entry, a payment-provider receipt, or a statement from an entity that handled the money.
• A date, and the identity of the account in a form a reader could in principle confirm. A first name on a poster is not that.
• The amount in the source matching the amount in the sentence, with the currency named by the source rather than inferred from a font.
• A statement of what the figure is. One player's one withdrawal is not an average, and an average is not a promise about the next withdrawal.

Nothing available to this review meets that bar. The developer site does not publish payout figures. The APK does not contain a ledger. The listing publishes posters. So this site publishes no payout figure at all, including no figure for how long a withdrawal takes, because that number was not measured either.

What the posters are still good for

They show how the listing chooses to present the product. The choice is a coin pusher cabinet rather than any of the six games the developer site names. That is a fact about the listing's art direction, and it belongs in a review of the listing. It does not belong in a sentence about what the app pays.

They also show the gap between the listing and the file. The file is a Cocos 3.8.2 package with encrypted game scripts, thirteen permissions, and a channel marker. None of that is visible in the posters, and none of the posters' claims are visible in the file. The two documents are about different subjects. Treating them as one document is the mistake.

A rule a reader can reuse

When a page about MMY prints a rupee amount, ask where it came from. If the answer is a screenshot, open the screenshot and see whether the number is set in type over a photograph of a cabinet. If it is, you are reading a poster. The checklist makes this the seventh check: does the number carry a source. A number that fails it is decoration, however precisely it is written.