Well, I'm not an old timer but I do feel strongly about any submission that is rewarded for geek gold, a review takes a certain level of knowledge of a game and several plays to get right, any review which sums up the rules to the game needs to get them correct, or at least needs to be quickly corrected if inaccuracies are spotted).

I've written seven reviews all of which have earned me 3 or more GG, I put a lot of thought into them have run all but the very first through a spell/grammar checker before posting and often times double check my rule books after writing (but before posting) the reviews, all are based on at least 4 plays of the game, usually much more (depending ont the game's complexity), I try to avoid 100% rule summaries as I do not want to plagarize rule books.

I see a lot of short reviews, less than a paragraph and even more session reports passed off as reviews. Not saying that's what the OP here has done, clearly there are review elements to your Dungeon Twister review1, just noting general trends.

It is my personal belief that a review needs to be slightly more than just personal opinion, a certain amount of objectivity must be contained, a good reviewer can say "I didn't like this game for X reason, but those who don't mind that would like this game", a review is a tool to help people understand and determine wether or not they would like a game. The ability for a reviewer to step out of thier own box and look at a game from someone elses perspective is invaluable.

For my own reviews I've taken a particular angle (playing games in a pub), for such a review the cardboard components of Dungeon Twister would score some major negative points, however for an average game-players home this may or may not be as major a negative.

Other points you decried about Dungeon Twister - expansions causing it to be a cash-cow, your (somewhat incorrect) perception on luck driven combat - are highly opinionated (clearly expressed by the comments left by others in your review), indeed the existence or planning of expansions for a game say nothing about wether or not a game is good on its own.

Lastly a quick word on formatting; Reviews are a GG cash-cow and the effort gone in should represent what you get out of it, a wall of poorly or unformatted text should not be as valuable as well formatted review. This is something I strive to improve with each review I write.

Now, all that above said anyone who wishes to write should always strive for improvement, try to make your next review better than the last and I'm sure you'll find the community more forgiving, and more GG in your pocket, sometimes we take a step back but as long as the geenral trend is one of forward momentum your contributions to this community will not be overlooked. Do not get discouraged by critisizm but use it as a tool to do better next time.

It is also an excellent idea to find a game in youyr collection that is lacking a review (or maybe only has one) and working to review it, these are more valuable than reviews for games that already have a half dozen or so already (unless you can come up with a unique slant)

Well above is my opinion and I hope it is helpful, I'm sure some of you will find my philosiphy on "objective review" content controversial.