The set reviews are somewhat disappointing. There is some logic in a good review.
For example, some may complain that the LEGO group should have made a new part for a set. The reason why LEGO may not want to is because designing a new part is expensive, which therefore increases the product's value. A reason why the LEGO Minifigure Series might be a bit high. Some may complain that LEGO should do printed parts and turn away from stickers. The reason why is because printed parts are for general models, and stickers are for unique sets. If LEGO made a new print on a 2x4 brick that only suited for one set, there would be too many 2x4 bricks to track, and money would be wasted for only one brick for one set. A 2x2 45 degree angle brick with a control panel print can not only be used for a plane, but for a spaceship, a helicopter, a control station. A tile with the print "TOY STORE" might only be used on a toy store. The reason for multiple instructions: To allow sharing between builders.
The most annoying complaint is when they say a part was missing, or a part was broken. For one thing, LEGO isn't trying to ruin your life. It is not LEGO's intention to make their customers suffer. LEGO's intention is to allow customers to have fun, and a missing or broken piece is an accident, not on purpose. LEGO tried their best to place in all the parts, and sometimes the scanners can't detect a missing piece that weighs a grain of sand.
A good way to review products is to figure out what's wrong and why LEGO decided to do that instead of just saying it's wrong, or weird, or not good looking. Another thing a reviewer can do is to not only say the good and bad, but to say what the reviewer did to make the model better using pieces from their own collection.
I don't know what other people think, but I believe that some (not all) reviewers just need to think outside the box (Literally or metaphorically) and what went into designing the set, before they begin composing a r