I guess I shouldn't have used the word objective but more like a standard that is followed for all reviews irrespective of who is the reviewer. Like say if one game is getting score reduced due to repetitiveness then it should be for other games as well or if a game is getting score reduced due to lack of replay value then it should be for others as well etc. Or like do as some other industries does and have a panel of reviewers do the review as opposed to just one person giving their opinion.
To clarify more, my point is more just that reviewers should just be clear in their personal likes and dislikes.
One reviewer can dock points for lack of replay value and another cannot for a different game for the same site. It's perfectly fine if the first reviewer makes it clear that replay value is something they care a lot about, and the other reviewer is clear that they couldn't care less about replay value as they're a "one and done and on to the next one" type of gamer.
So I don't think we're actually disagreeing that much as it's really just both wanting more transparency in reviews. It doesn't have to be consistency across reviewers on a site if the reviewers are articulate in why they like/dislike a game and why they gave it the score they did. If they're articulate then someone that doesn't care about replay value (in my example above) can disregard a review from someone that docked a game for lack of replay value--or vice versa.
I'll also agree entirely that the panel of reviewers approach is the best. I've never found any review source I liked as much as EGM back in the day. A mostly consistent (with changes overtime) review team that you could learn whose tastes matched yours the best, four opinions on all games, and stated relatively short and to the point. The best I can do now is just check reviews on a few sites, find a handful of people on differently places whose tastes seem to align with mine and read all of those reviews for anything I'm on the fence about.