Anytime I see a review that deviates too far from mean score either merits a closer look as to what the reviewer saw that everyone else didn't, or I simply don't bother giving that site and the review my time and hit.
The former runs the assumption that the reviewer in question, as it is no longer the review itself that's the point of focus, is either incredibly insightful and perceptive or in rare instances, is simply a reviewer who's written reviews I largely found myself agreeing with in the past.
I have to say that the "incredibly insightful and perceptive" stamp of legitimacy is so rare that it may as well be a platinum leaf embossed stamp of approval and in virtually every case, the review can simply be chalked up to:
a) they just didn't like the game. Not their thing. They like FPS games and instead they're reviewing the latest chapter of Let's Dance.
b) all too common: the reviewer really wants to be relevant, generate hits and create any sort of controversy that will make it happen. They may not even agree with their own words.
c) must be the contrarian. If the vast majority is universally in accord regarding the merits of a given game, they feel it's their duty to tell everyone otherwise.
The one thing all three types of reviews have in common is that none of them matter beyond the opinion that "everyone is entitled to their opinion" which overlooks the fact that some opinions are more valid than others.