Reviews here are strange compared to other hobby sites. On Boardgamegeek, for example, if a player isn't a fan of a game and rates it a 3.0, there isn't much questioning about their motive. They just didn't like it. Maybe they thought the art was poor or the theme didn't work for them or they had a bad playing experience or whatever else. There isn't a lot of pressure to rate a game at least "X" because it is OBVIOUSLY GOOD. The user's rating is supposed to reflect what that user thought of the game, and nothing else. If one guy thinks Twilight Struggle is crap it doesn't matter, because there are 50 people who think it's great.
Sure, there are bogus ratings, like if a designer says something bone-headed and gets piled-on, but for the most part, the negative and the positive balance out and the eventual rating gives a glimpse of how many players enjoyed their experience with the product.
I played WOZ at the Pinball Hall of Fame. I didn't care for the sound or the lighting. The art was well executed, but the animations on the LCD looked cheap and reminded me of a slot machine. To another person, the animations probably look great. Both of our opinions are valid. They would rate it higher than I would, some would rate it lower, and eventually we would discover how many people like the animations out of a given sample. That's the point of the user reviews. Removing all reviews that dissent from the norm doesn't improve your result, it distorts it.