There are many ways to approach an Internet review. Generally the most appreciated is a knowledgeable, well-informed, and yet concise as possible look at the thing or place being reviewed. A personal response to the subject of the review is appreciated so long as it is tempered and composed and most of the opinion is invested into the authorial, informed, and godlike voice of the overall review.
Another approach to an Internet review is one in which the reviewer takes his or her sometimes short term and limited experience to be of profound and essential importance. Basing their review strictly and passionately upon themselves they trust the mosaic of other reviews to provide the wide ranging picture that their isolated interaction cannot.
A third approach to an Internet review is one in which the reviewer uses their review, and his or her experiences with the subject of the review, as an opportunity to express themselves and their relationship to the world, and through that wider lens give a feeling of what the subject of the review might more fully be. This can also give a reader an insight into what their own experience with the review subject could, and might, be.
All of these approaches to an Internet review can be valid and of great value to the wider community of the Internet. Indeed, there is probably only one kind of Internet review that is utterly reprehensible, and that is one in which the author of the review never even mentions the subject of the review and instead mysteriously expounds at great length about the very nature of Internet reviews themselves.
Fortunately, as far as I understand it, this last type of reprehensible Internet review is phenomenally rare, and I know of only one that exists on the whole of the Internet.
Unfortunately you have found it.