Like some mentioned before me, it wouldn't be a bad idea to post a separate re-review on games that show things in hindsight. At the same time this can differentiate between games that were good at the time and other games that are truly classics. For example my opinion of OOT has not changed much at all. I can still play it today (actually beat it again less than 2 weeks ago and will probably play it again in a couple of months or so) and not get bored, and the graphics are definitely not an eyesore.
I could also say that nothing has changed my mind on SOTN and I still play it both on my PS3 and on my PSP 3000 when I am traveling just about anywhere. Now with MGS4 I liked it alot the first time I played it through, but on my second and third playthrough recently I find myself loving it even more. Now as much as I love FFVII overall for what it represents, I kinda struggled to finish it, whereas I playing FFVIII again I enjoyed it even more. I think in the end it just depends under criteria is used to re-review as well. It's not fair to compare graphics from SNES to the Wii, but alot of elements of gameplay can remain timeless. On an entirely PERSONAL note I don't see how SMG should even score past a 93, but I can see NSMBW score a 94 but SMB3 a 95 and so on.

Reviews are not, nor should they ever be, determined by the popular opinion. They are a professional analysis of a game. Obviously people will not always agree with that analysis, but a review should always be an analysis whether you agree with it or not. Some people will, some will not. 

Thankfully for this site you have absolutely no say at all about how I run the reviews.

Haha of course not. I wish so called "professional" reviewers would change scores if they thought something was done improperly. The most important thing about a review is to inform the consumer about the product as accurately as possible. If that's not being done then it needs to be fixed to make sure the right message is being sent out.

I really do think that people who think others lose credibility because they are willing to admit they are wrong need a reality check. Those who are willing to admit they are wrong and didn't get it right the first time and willing to change for the sake of being more accurate are people who should be held to the highest respect. Maybe if politicians in my country could do something like that we'd live in a better world. Maybe if people in general could do it haha.

I wouldn't like it at all.

That makes no sense. Adjusting scores isn't the same as admitting you're wrong. We have editing for that. Reviews cannot possibly please everyone who reads them, so they just need to be accurate and well-justified. If there is inaccurate information in a review I will absolutely make sure that it's corrected, but it matching your opinion does not make it right or wrong. What makes it right or wrong is if it's well-justified for the score it does give the game, complete, and accurate. 

But, if anything by telling people they are "wrong" anytime you don't agree with their score of a game you are showing your own arrogance, not theirs. 

It may be more sensible to take reviews as snapshots of a reviewer's tastes and perspective at the time of the writing. If a reviewer looks back at one of their own reviews and disagrees with what they find, that's fine, but they should not change it. Rather, they can take it as an opportunity to look at themselves and say, "My priorities - or my perspective - have changed since reviewing this game"

Oh that's a cop out.  If you are doing your job correctly a written review and the score it represents are one in the same thing.  Therefore if you admit you were wrong in a review you wrote, then your score is wrong too.  Reviews aren't technical papers, they are personal opinion.  Justification, while based off the features, is still personal in the conclusion you come to (why some people like certain genres or not).  So no having the "ballz" to admit you are wrong and change it thereof isn't a sign of arrogance.  Thinking that what you are writing is technical and the word of the almighty lord is the biggest load of arrogance ever.  Reviewers, therefore, should have absolutely no issue changing a review score if they felt they reviewed improperly BASED on their own opinions because that is all it ever was to begin with.

There have been just one review that has bothered me and always wish someone else who did not hate the series to begin with had reviewed the game.
God of War: Chains of Olympus

not rlly, wii exclusives have been greatly overrated