I've read plenty of rather idiotic reviews that were quite lengthy. I've also read very insightful reviews that could fit within a tweet. To me, a review of an IPA that says "Citrusy. Could have used more dry hops, a lower mash temp, and a lower fermentation temp" is much more useful than something praising how much orange, clementine, tangerine, blood orange, etc that comes from the hop bill, and spends a sentence detailing an inch measurement of the beer's head at different intervals. I'm guessing the shorter review is much more helpful to a brewer as well. Maybe, just maybe, someone who wrote a very short review spent a good deal of time considering the beer while amongst friends and doesn't have the time to write lengthy reviews? By way of further example, I would much rather get nothing other than a score from someone I know to have a good palate versus a page-long review from some idiot who would give a 4.5 to hight-hopped dishwater. When Armand told my wife and I that he thought Consecration was "excellent," that endorsement did more than anything that anyone on this site could do in terms of causing me to seek out that beer had I not previously known that it was quite good. You may also want to remember that many brewing awards are given out after tasting sessions not unlike what you describe with "tickers." Not everything is necessarily so black and white. Perhaps you should consider that.