The problem with most other reviewers for anything is that they don't have a standard theory that they review by. Most just review by whatever they're feeling at the moment or depending on what author it is or what everyone else says. These kinds of systems are not fair to books that don't deserve to have a high rating or that do deserve a high rating.
Believe me, I know how it feels to like or dislike a book depending on the whim of the moment. However if you're going to review something, you have to be fair about it.
Therefore, there is a need for a standard, not just in reviewing, but in life.
Standard #1: Liking everything
This one isn't hard. Just rate everything five stars. Then you're done and you don't have to think about the stress of picking apart the plot. Believe me, Christian reviews have too many of those already
Standard #2: Liking the idea behind the plot
There's nothing wrong with this way; I just don't like it because the reviewer ends up basing most of the review on what the cover description says, not on what the plot actually is. It's fine to like original ideas. I like original ideas, I just also care about what the author does with them.
Standard #3: Liking good characters
Some of us like the people we meet. But this also means that those types of people will discard bad characters. Again, nothing wrong with that one; I dislike bad characters as well. But one cannot base the plot heavily upon the characters just because they aren't as good as others. Especially if the plot is good.
Standard #4: Liking entertaining plots
This is a popular one, especially in the world of suspense lovers. They like a plot that twists, turns, and explodes in their face, no matter if the plot is typical or not. They just want a wild ride. Usually these types of people discard character development and just want the plot to sweep the characters along. The problem with this type of standard is that "boring" plots with good characters are tossed by the wayside in the wake of false suspense.
Another version of this type of standard is liking "funny" plots. The problem with this one is most of the time, the reviewer will ignore bad plot structure and downright stupidity all in the name of comedy.
Standard #5: Liking a certain genre
This is another popular one, but one of the most limiting. If this is your standard, than you are putting on blinders everything you enter the bookstore or the library. This limits your scope of thinking and reading and blinds you to the fact that there are other genres out there. While this fine for your everyday reader as a reviewer you must attempt to be neutral and simply appreciate great writing.
Standard #6: Examining the book as a whole
This is the type of standard I finally came to like because it encompasses the whole book. A five star book, using this type of standard, is balanced. There is a good, entertaining plot and believable characters. This type of standard does not get too focused on any one aspect of the plot unless it is poisoning the rest of it. As a reviewer, you cannot focus in on one thing and look for it in every book. You must think about the plot as a whole.
Just something for you to chew on