It hadn't occurred to me before this article but after thinking about it I do depend upon Amazon/Goodreads ratings in large portion when choosing my next book.. Upon re-examination I think I'm going to factor in more book critics' opinions into my selection process.
A well-respected translation was criticized by at least one Amazon reviewer for its commentary, which veered off-topic, included the editor's own ideas, etc. I ruled out that translation.
Then I read a scholarly review of the translations (found via Google Scholar) and learned that such commentary is the proper way and that it's been done that way for centuries or more. The editor is meant to interact with the Kongzi's text.
If I didn't read the scholarly review, I would have believed the Amazon reviewer. It was a lesson to me - one I finally accepted: No matter how smart you think you are, unless you have expertise in a field then you lack the ability to discern the truth from ignorance. Persuasiveness is not a measure of truth. You're a sucker, a mark, if you think otherwise.
I no longer read Amazon reviews for such purposes and don't trust Wikipedia either. Also, note that reading the Amazon review actually hurt me; bad information is worse than no information.
The answer to that surely depends on what you need.
My friend is a car expert. I might read a positive review of a car which said that its small engine made it easy to control. He would say that a small engine meant it had poor top speed and acceleration and therefore sucked.
Surely all I learned from this is that the car has a small engine. Someone who drives a lot of cars may want a fun one. Someone who reads a lot of translations of the analects may want a dialogue that contributes to the field. After all, if such a scholar wanted a litteral translation they would read it in the original language.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/136-9956209-9412407?...
Isn't that heretical, and deserving of - what's the word nowadays ... oh, yeah - "consequences"?