Your response sounds flippant, but I am with you, except I don’t see the value in writing reviews at all, good or bad. I have no stake in whether another person is persuaded to patronize or avoid a place. Moreover, I doubt any online review I write would have any impact on the business itself.

If I have a specific complaint for a place close to my heart, like a coffee shop or restaurant or local shop, I’ll talk to the manager, privately and calmly, and be on my way.

I'm not trying to change your process, but just letting you know that that process is not the same for everyone, hence it'd be useful for others to know your "tint."

It's interesting that your main criteria is how you feel you were treated, though. Discussed in the article:

"Restaurant reviews in which people sound traumatized by perceived injustice don’t tend to comment much on the food — it’s usually the perception of being treated rudely or uncaringly that seems to have pushed people into processing by writing out their feelings in a public forum."

Most people look at reviews to see whether the thing actually is what it claims to be, so reviews saying that it is in fact what it claims to be are useful.

Doesn't mean you have to, just means that it'd be more helpful to others if you write "it actually is what it claims to be" reviews.

Because the world is not divided into good and bad, and I care about the 'why' of a rating much more than I care about whether it's positive or negative.

What's the difference between an entity with a long, postitive reputation, and a new unknown entity?

Do you consider them equally attractive?