That is not to say there dont exist useless bad reviews, but typically a "negative" or "mixed" (euphemism for mediocre) review has the following going for them:
1. They're less likely to be fake, simpy because there is less incentive for people to write a fake bad review besides some vengeance or warring orgs.
Bad reviews are inherently more risky. People who write fake reviews for vip credit, I imagine never would write a bad review because it will place more attention on them and will more likely to be called out as fake by the provider.
For many people, writing a bad review is harder because they feel like grading a girl lower they're personally offending her and so forth. When a person who almost never writes negative reviews gets a negative one out, you know you gotta read that one. Lol.
2. They're more likely to be detailed. In a bad review a reviewer usually will try to communicate in details why the score is lower. At the least one aspect they disliked will be talked about most likely.
3. They signal worst case scenario. Sometimes a baseline high floor is more important than a high ceiling, depending on what you want.
As such, I always read negative reviews first. There are fewer of them, the people who wrote them usually take a risk and many times genuinely want to prevent others from having same experiences if possible/applicable.
This is just how I see it, of course. There's no telling what those several people who liked your review thought. A toftt review that is detailed usually has many likes. But I don't pay attention to likes too much. They can be farmed via not accounts and so forth. I've seen excellent positive and negative reviews have like one like, and I've seen shill reviews have 10 likes.