I feel like this criticism is basically "Rotten Tomatoes does what Rotten Tomatoes intends to do." That's the whole point. If 73% of critics, all coming from different places, said a movie sucks (as they did with Batman v. Superman), chances are it's not very good. If I only read 1 review, how do I know that person just doesn't like superhero movies? And if that's the case, their review stops being meaningful. But by giving an aggregate, we get much more meaningful information. I don't find his analogy at the end to be compelling at all, and really isn't a good description of what Rotten Tomatoes does.A range of critics with quite different styles, quite different viewpoints, quite different approaches and quite different prejudices cannot meaningfully be reduced to an average.