My take on this is that as long as I know where the reviewer is coming from, I can get something out of the review. If I know that the reviewer has only read the adventure, then I know I'm going to get an overview of the plot and some impressions that have no play informing them. If I know that the reviewer has played the adventure, then I know that I'll also get some impressions that have some play informing them.
But even in the latter case - I usually don't know enough about the reviewer to know if their "at the table" impressions are important for my consideration. Not everyone runs games the same way - the differences of opinion on how D&D should be played just on this site would be enough for me to know that a reviewer's impression at the table may not mean anything at all for how it runs at my table (if I didn't already have decades of experience with different tables also making that obvious, I guess).
So for me all reviews are valuable because they can give me an overall impression of the product but all reviews are also simultaneously nearly useless because they can tell me almost nothing about what my group's actual play experience with the product is going to be. Given that reviews for me essentially become "advertisements" - informing me about products that exist that I might not be able to get my hands on to flip through myself. (So reviews of official D&D adventures are less valuable than reviews of, say, adventures on DM's Guild because I can walk into literally any Barnes and Noble in town, buy a cup of coffee, and read it for myself and get a better impression of whether it will work for me than any review might give me. Reviews of DM's Guild products OTOH can help separate wheat from chaff).
But even in the latter case - I usually don't know enough about the reviewer to know if their "at the table" impressions are important for my consideration. Not everyone runs games the same way - the differences of opinion on how D&D should be played just on this site would be enough for me to know that a reviewer's impression at the table may not mean anything at all for how it runs at my table (if I didn't already have decades of experience with different tables also making that obvious, I guess).
So for me all reviews are valuable because they can give me an overall impression of the product but all reviews are also simultaneously nearly useless because they can tell me almost nothing about what my group's actual play experience with the product is going to be. Given that reviews for me essentially become "advertisements" - informing me about products that exist that I might not be able to get my hands on to flip through myself. (So reviews of official D&D adventures are less valuable than reviews of, say, adventures on DM's Guild because I can walk into literally any Barnes and Noble in town, buy a cup of coffee, and read it for myself and get a better impression of whether it will work for me than any review might give me. Reviews of DM's Guild products OTOH can help separate wheat from chaff).