When it comes to reviews, if you've already bought the album and listened to it, what does a review even matter at that point? The purpose of a review is to explain to those who are interested why the work is worthy of attention. Inherently, we see a review as a means to validate our opinions, but critical acclaim doesn't necessarily mean you will like it. It also doesn't mean you have to like it.
Pitchfork is an entirely different animal. Their "reviews" don't read like reviews. They write these think pieces about albums to create narratives and little focus is given to the music all while flexing collegiate level literary skills.
The writers for The Source were collegiate level writers too, but they didn't flex it. Their reviews explained why you should or shouldn't check for an album. It was straight to the point and written specifically for their readers. Pitchfork isn't even for the casual reader because they waste too much space addressing things about an album or artist that have nothing to do with music.