I've said it before: reviews on GOG are almost completely useless, and not worth getting upset about. And without a pre-publishing peer review system (staffed by volunteers), it's only going to get worse over time; imposing any limitations on the reviewers is not going to work.

It's an utterly broken feature, but not worth the (not insignificant) effort to make it better, if you ask me.

People are just trolling reviews now because they know 1 line reviews, or doing a review one minute after the game is released causes a firestorm.

Yes, open for all reviews will never be "perfect" anywhere - but there's a few simple ways that are not a lot of effort on the GOG team that would improve things. Add a minimum length to reviews. Say 200 words. Will get rid of a lot of the impulsiveness. Allow people to filter by review score (only show reviews of this / that score). Allow people to highlight reviewers that are helpful, not just reviews. I.e. someone that generally writes good reviews on more than one game is highlighted - those that provide well written arguments consistently and provide quality are easier to find.

Yup, that would help, have a sip of rep :)