It's a site built around unbiased fact, but the community is unpoliced, tightknit and incapable of setting aside their personal opinions. So the neutral tone of it is undermined by users blatant agendas, which comes in the form of applying inherently negative or positive tropes to shows/games/etc. that the user either loves or hates. If a user loves a show, expect to see terms like "some anvils need to be dropped" in place of "anvilicious". If a user hates a show, you'll find "dude, not funny!" shoehorned into its page, even if the offending joke is one that only seems to bother the user in question. Opinion masquerading as fact is incredibly cheap.
There's also the fact that the entire site is just a collection of definitions with no real focus discussion or analysis. I've seen some decent stuff in the YMMV and Head scratcher sections, but for the most part it's essentislly just cataloguing. It cheapens storytelling when every possible component of a story is broken down into basic terms, some of which are inherently unflattering. The helicopter gunner scene in Full Metal Jacket is horrowing and iconic, yet according to TV Tropes it's just another instance of the "Obligatory War Crime Scene" trope.
It's also infested with weebs. It used to be really bad, where tropes were disproportionately named after Japanese phrases, even if the trope itself was not expicitly Japan related. Calling the basic "best friends" trope some weird nipspeak word is pretty confusing to those of us who graduated High School at age 18, and does not clearly indicate what the trope is.
And lastly, there's just something so obnoxious about the way they coin these names and then use them as if they're actual terms. It's the online media analysis equivalent of quoting yourself, aelewis style.
Also, Troper Tales.