The idea that I would take some random stranger's advice because they earned some 'Yelp Stars' or whatever by wasting a bunch of their time on the site trying to feel important is ridiculous. I stopped looking at these pretty quick after I realized what a time-sink it was that did not seem to result in me patronizing any better places than I was before. (And the fact that Yelp seems to go out of there way to prevent me from surfacing details I might actually be curious about from reviews). It seems they are much more interested in optimizing the site to encourage people to
write reviews rather than make those reviews useful to those who might be reading them. Why are they creating a situation where 500 people are writing 500-word reviews that no one will ever read? When the most sophisticated aggregation of this they seem capable of doing is "4 people mentioned the cashew chicken! [What they had to
say about the cashew chicken, well good luck figuring that out]."
The only model of crowd-sourced reviews that interests me at this point would be one that normalizes ratings against an individual's biases (so someone who gives every place 2 stars is not skewing the average) and models preferences to give personalized recommendations (since you like establishments X and Y, you might like establishment Z that other similar users have rated highly). AFAIK Yelp isn't doing any of this.