That article, while amusing, smacked of whining to me. I understand that the whole "reviews are only accurate if I agree with them" concept is as pervasive as it is dubious , but complaining about people who complain about reviews seems like a waste of an editorial, not to mention self-serving.
I have seen some really piss-poor reviews of games whose final score I nonetheless agreed with, and I've seen some really good reviews that have slagged games that I really liked. What I look for in a reviewer is someone who has similar tastes as I do, with a similar interest in the type of games I like. It's become harder now that so much of reviewing is freelance, and there are so many reviewers who seem to come and go. Jim Rossingnol, Desslock, Brett Todd, Adam Sessler, and Dan Stapleton are reviewers whose scoring I trust because I have found that they have very similar tastes and tolerance levels to my own. Then there are reviewers like Evan Lahti, Tom Chick, and Yahtzee Cremshaw, just to name a few, who tend to have different gaming tastes from my own. Even though I have seen quality writing from them, I tend to not put as much stock in how they score games because they like different things. That's fine though; I'm, sure that there are many who do share similar tastes with these reviewers for whom their reviews are very useful.
My biggest problem is with reviewers who score a game by how big of a title it is, and how much money was poured into it (Halo 3/Metal Gear games, etc.).
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi