Would this change mitigate the problem of clickbait scores on Metacritic?

[Mnementh]

Hiku said:

The importance of metacritic scores varies from person to person. But to some people they are very important.
One issue people often perceive (whether it really happens or not can be hard to prove in some cases) is that some publications will give a game or a movie a significantly higher, or more often than not, lower score to get clicks for their site.

Even if they do this, it may not be their intention to affect the overall metacritic score. But it none the less can have a noticeable effect on it. And this seems to be why a lot of people get angry at so called clickbait reviews. They'd be easier to ignore if they didn't just lower the metascore of your favorite game from a fantastic 92 to a terrible/unplayable/disastrous/I-Will-Cancel-My-Preorder 89.

The other day it occurred to me that there may be a rather simple, and commonly used, fix to this problem. Or at least a way to mitigate the issue.

Some times when calculating an average value, a few of the highest and lowest values are removed from the calculation to filter out results that potentially stray too far from the norm, and get a better representation of the average score.

I imagine if you removed a portion of the top and bottom review scores for games or movie, so called clickbait reviews would be much less of a problem considering that only a small portion of reviews tend to be suspected of this.

What do you guys think?

For stuff like this should be used a median score instead of an average. With an average extreme values have more influence on the result as moderate ones (it doesn't matter if extremely high or extremely low). A median solves all this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median