I don't think it's unreasonable for metacritic to start removing the highest and lowest score. Anyone giving a game a perfect 10 or 100/100 would be taking the chance that their site would lose out on the hits they get through meta's links. IMO no game has ever or will ever be perfect.
Conversely there has been a noticable trend to be the lowest scorer on any given game. Reviewers on small sites may be waiting to see the lowest number in the initial rush of reviews before picking a number. Remove that lowest score and the incentive to deliberately troll is gone. One review that is 40-60 points below the mean has more of an impact than it deserves.
Have a link available with the names and sites of the most extreme of the outliers. Not a direct link. More importantly don't put their site name on the front page and don't count the scores in the average. I never read the most extreme reviews anymore but something needs to be done and you can't start removing sites because they disagree with the norm.
Just to set up a straw man here, if the counter-argument is that they really felt strongly about the game then they, as writers of integrity will continue to do so. If they're trolling for hits or deliberately trying to sabotage a particular IP, genre or company because of pre-conceived bias they may think again.
