As you can see "Rantology" by Ministry must be one shit album, as its score of 2 really brings down the average. You can read the review or maybe listen to album to find out why, but I wouldn't recommend the latter choice.
Anyhow, down below the fold, you can also look at a year-by-year view of daily averages.
At the moment, the current year is autoselected and, seeing as how it's only January at the time of writing this, you can only see it's only partially filled out. However, you can select one or more years from the past and see how they compare:
In addition to this, you can also see a running "Top 50" chart for artists and reviewers, so to speak. For artists, the x-axis represents their average score across all of the albums they've had reviewed by Pitchfork. The y-axis represents their total number of albums reviewed. This means that the further to the top right the artist is, the more prolific and well-reviewed an artist is.
At the time of writing this (and perhaps to no one's surprise), The Beatles hold the top-right most spot for maintaining an 8.8 score average across 21 album reviews. Meanwhile, at the bottom-leftish region you have Nine Inch Nails with an 5.89 average score across 12 album. That being said, just making the chart makes you pretty awesome as it's a ratio of score to prolificness, so to speak.
The same "Top 50" is calculate for Pitchfork reviewers themselves. Only for the reviewers, the x-axis represents the average of their scores given while the y-axis represents their total number of reviews written.
This chart takes on a slightly different meaning. Being in the top right, makes you a prolific, yet kind critic. I'll let you be the judge of whether you value "kindness" in a critic or prefer a more sangfroid, low-rater. If you prefer the kinder critic, this means Joe Tangari (822 reviews, 7.38 average) and Mark Richardson (439 reviews / 7.54 average) are your go-to guys, since they are both prolific and high-raters. On the opposite spectrum you have Ian Cohen, who is very prolific at 589 reviews and much harder to impress with a 6.29 average score given. That leaves Stephen M. Deusner as your middle-of-the-road choice. Very prolific (682 reviews written) and not too harsh nor too kind (6.95 average score given).
That being said, the data recomputes each day so come back each day to watch these scores change over the course of time and maybe you can see reviewers and artists reposition themselves here or maybe drop off the chart altogether.
If you don't want to come back daily, that's okay. Pitchfork Metrics also includes an e-mail bot on the back-end that will send you emails with only the reviews you care about. In addition to your name, email, etc., you give it a score threshold (that is, the lower bound score of an album before you will care enough to read its review) and a(n optional) list of artists you actually give a shit about. The bot then takes care of the rest and sends you an email if/when reviews match your criteria and only then. That means, if you set your standards high enough, you may never get an e-mail, but hopefully you aren't that much of a music snob.
So yeah, that's Pitchfork Metrics. Check it out and send me feedback by email or bug reports via Pitchfork Metrics' Github page (https://github.com/omardelarosa/pitchfork-metrics)