Initially there wouldn't have been any score. Then I felt the need to introduce them, but on a completely different basis than the usual 1 = garbage / 10 = masterpiece scale.
I already wrote it elsewhere, but again: I recommend to play every game I reviewed in the Annual; there are no "turkeys" at all among them. However, I wanted to differentiate between them. Think about it like the Michelin guide. If a restaurant is mentioned there, it is considered by the guide's authors as a recommended place where to eat, but there are differences in quality and in the global experience between restaurants which get three stars and those which get two or one. Not to mention the fact that all of the games are reviewed; ratings are thoroughly explained.
It's a very different thing from just anonymously placing a number beneath a title.
Moreover, I don't think the scores in the WOS were fair all of the time, especially for newer games. Cases of people receiving 1's or 10's to all of their titles just because the author encouraged people to vote for them (something that I never did, and do not wish to do) or, on the opposite, was the subject of a sort of trolling were far from being rare.
If ratings could be nominal, like they are, say, in ZX-Art, it would be better, although it does not protect from people creating bogus accounts to be able to vote more times.
Maybe I sound excessively concerned about this issue, and probably I am. But past experiences make me feel so. I am glad that Peter has taken my points into consideration.
