I wonder what will happen as the verified ratings increase for the audience score. 215k versus 19k.
Remember that RT changed their policies regarding user reviews earlier this year after Captain Marvel was review-bombed. Essentially, you have to have actually bought a ticket through Fandango to leave a review (and I don't think you can leave a review until after the actual showtime of a film). These anti-brigading measures will likely mean that we won't see movies with 200k+ user reviews anymore. But with an actual vetting process in place, it should increase the quality of user reviews even if it decreases the quantity. 20k+ is still a very good sample size, and since RT has made to where not every random person on the internet with an axe to grind can leave a user review even if they haven't actually seen the movie, it should greatly cut down on troll reviews.
Other sites like Metacritic (which is awful for user reviews, as it seems 90% of reviewers think the only scores worth giving to anything are either 1 or 10) and IMDb don't yet have any similar process of vetting user reviews, so review-bombers may still strike there. TROS's IMDb page already has a lot of obviously bad-faith reviews, with 7.5% of people dropping a 1/10 score, a big spike from the people that gave it a 2/10. If you take away those 1/10 reviews, the arithmetic average increases from 6.9/10 to 7.4/10, which shows how much even a modest amount of 1/10 reviews can tank an average score. Why else do you think bad-faith actors tend to drop lowest-possible review scores? (It's like how one or two bad matches can wreck my K/D ratio for the day when I play Halo, even if I have a lot of good matches where I do at least my career average.) Two-thirds of user reviews were a 7/10 or higher, with the most common score being an 8/10. Only 16.6% of users gave it a 4/10 or less.
With pretty much every film that's not obvious MST3K fodder (think Plan 9 from Outer Space, Howard the Duck, Biodome, Ishtar, etc.), I really, really doubt that when people give extremely low scores that they are giving their honest appraisal of a film's quality. Rather, I think they are simply leaving protest votes designed to hurt the average score. A lot of movies, games, and TV shows in recent years have been drawn into internet nerd wars and culture/politics wars (of which there's often significant overlap), and as a result we've seen a huge influx of these bad-faith actors flooding various websites with lowest-possible reviews (and to be fair there are probably some people who try to counter those 1/10 scores by giving the title a 10/10). Things reached a critical mass with the aforementioned Captain Marvel earlier this year, which is what prompted RT to change their policies. In this day and age a vetting process is needed.