We'd love your feedback ^_^ But probably better to email or PM us.
Just like it would have been better for you to contact Deathsparks about with these methods? Not to say that it isn't a good lesson or undeserving (Really? How can you call it a review if you didn't even play the full game?), but IMO it comes off as a bit unprofessional to be addressing this issue in a forum post.
I'm not trying to humiliate anyone. I was questioning OpenCritic's quality checks during the application process for the contributor program, and I was pointing out clear discrepancies between what their criteria is as stated on their site, and the quality of the content found on this Pixels Game Reviews blog. The author of the site can write and post as many sloppy reviews has he likes, and break every embargo in the world, but I don't think such sites should be acknowledged by reputable review aggregators. Do you?
I've been posting a few times about review scores lately and this is a huge issue with review aggregators of all types. On Rotten Tomatoes many "critics" have terrible quality reviews yet they are still counted as critics. Now some are just some no name blogs such as this OpenCritic case, but what about something like Rolling Stone? They are a "Tomato-approved publication" but their "review" of Suicide Squad told me hardly anything about the movie, or why I should or should not devote time to this movie (other reviews convinced me that I shouldn't). Now are you going to remove this one reviewer and keep the others from the publication?
Now this may be my bias talking, but review aggregators just do not work at all in painting an accurate picture on how a movie or game is. Their entire existence is to create an "at a glance" consensus on the medium it involves (at least, it looks that way to me). I don't believe OpenCritic can change this or make things better, but try to prove me wrong.
Now this is all off topic. How unprofessional of me.