All Music Guide- Who are

Many of us go to to get info and reviews on music. Nowhere on their site do they describe who their reviewers are. They say “Our editorial staff and network of writers represent many of the most knowledgeable experts in music..." No names or specifics.

Why do we give these folks credibility, when we don't know who they are? Also, they don't describe clearly how they determine their star ratings?

Their business objective is not to give balanced musical reviews. As they say, "Licensing remains the core of our business today". That's fine. I just want to know who their reviewers are, and what qualifications- if any- they bring to their reviews.

We elected a president because many voters didn't question his credibility. We need to be more critical thinkers & consumers.

Is it not reasonable to request/demand from allmusic a listing of their "expert" qualifications and clarification on their star criteria?
Let me ask you a question: Why do YOU give these folks credibility, when you don't know who they are? They are just offering their opinions. No reviewer/critic, in any field (including audio, by the way) has or deserves any special credibility. Take it for what it is: one reasonably thoughtful person's opinion of the worth of a particular recording.

I find Allmusic (as well as published guides by other companies) most useful for music I'm not familiar with. They can also help me figure out where to start with a new artist, or suggest what else I should try if I already like one or two works by a particular artist. But I don't expect to agree with them all the time, and I often don't.
You can gain at least a little bit of insight by looking at their books. I have a few of the 'All Music Guide" books and each has a long list of "contributors", though with no descriptions. They do have a paragraph or so on each of the editors for the book.
The stars ON THE WEBSITE come from common folks giving rating to the listings.
Have you ever noticed ALL the christmas albums have high star markings? That comes from ONE dedicated (crazy) person.
The actual reviews in the books sometimes are at odds with the star ratings.
An item may have three stars and get a big thumbs up from the reviewer.
My take on the JaZZ All Music Guide book is that I agree with the reviewers pretty well. (I really LIKE the stuff they "Star")
Compared to Penguin which is English, and has lead me into bad choices of stuff to listen to.
As for Rock, several competing review books exist, Rolling Stone, Musichound...
As for being blindingly lead by a review... and not finding out for oneself... Well, we all have only so much time... and I prefer to spend it on stuff that has the best chance or being worth listening to.
If you look up an artist the biography has the author at the top right, and if you click on a particulat album that has a review it says who the reviewer is in the same place.
I'd add the caution that I have found numerous instances where the star ratings and the capsule reviews on allmusic don't agree. A review will call an album the artist's best work, but it will have fewer stars than some others. In just about every such case, I've agreed with the reviewer rather than the star rating (though occasionally I agree with neither).
I don't have faith in a review because the reviewer is "somebody". I often find that the, so called, "important" critics are less sensitive to the music that they are listening to because of their status as a reviewer. I pay attention to the statements made in AMG reviews because, throughout the years, they seem to me to be fairly descriptive and even handed. I don't often agree with the number of stars, but I feel that by reading the review I can usually assess how I will respond to the music. IMHO, AMG is the most reliable source for information regarding the musical content of recordings with which I am not yet familiar.
i'll sign my name to any review of a cd you wish. be advised, tho, that you'll be charged my RHR of $295. wanna' send me a list?