Anyway, this is also why medians are important when calculating a meta score.

Ya'll need to watch High School Musical. Following the Status Quo should not be an expectation.

True-ish. Perhaps I shouldn't have deleted that sentence where I mentioned the site would be plastered with ad's and "click me" banners. Though you'd be surprised how much ignorance is on some of those YouTube reviews that often say something shocking for viewer counts. That was kind of what I was thinking at the time. Their ignorance often already fits their profile.

Ah, sounds like feigned ignorance. I suppose even real ignorance can also be used for clickbaits/trolling though, but I don't think honest ignorance is really a problem in this regard.

http://www.thejimquisition.com/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-review/ Looks like TheJimquisition is also a troll review, just read it and look it's pictures, don't know why people is defending him saying he was objetive and serious. Come on people, naming a horse My Dick, making jokes about it and publishing a review with it on it is a profesional review?

After gamergate and tons of other issues, we just can not trust video game journalists. The best thing we can do is to have a couple of youtubers or bloggers that have a similar taste that us and go by them. Also, forums like these, general previews and feature showcases.
Still, in the end, buying videogames is always a gamble: you can make a great purchase or have a lousy piece of junk.
It is a risk. I totally do not trust hipster gaming journalist and silicone filled gaming babes: sites and channels that have these I usually stay away.

When the reviewer doesn't even play a half of the game, but still scores it, there are a lot of games that get insanely better as you progress and other that get bad (cough*bravely default*cough); or when their complaints don't make any sense (like someone complaining about the lack of multiplayer in a game like Horizon).

The problem is that people don't realize that there are 2 thought schools of review scores.

The first one is to try to assess the sum of a games merits and adjust accordingly to its failures. Those are the mid to high reviews.
The other is going by fun factor. Judging a game on how much you enjoyed it overall without taking into account the individual merits or failures. The score is based on what feeling you left the game with. Those are the very high and very low reviews.

Neither of them is right or wrong.

What is wrong however is calling every review score you don't like "clickbait".

When they purposely make an extreme score just to get clicks

I think "clickbait" applies for exaggeration. When the review sells itself with a title like "This new Zelda is nothing like you've ever experienced" then is clickbait. Wether the review itself is ignorant or not would depend on other factors that I dont think have anything to do.