I feel confident in my score.
As (presumably??) does everyone making a rating!!
My main takeaways from "ratings" are
a. The ratings usually tell one more about the rater than the site being rated.
b. There are few sites so bad that someone won't give them a 4.5/5 and few sites so good that someone won't give them a 1/1.5!
A bit like reading and utilising hotel and theatre reviews - one has to determine how much one "rates the rater". And this doesn't just get sorted out in the "averages" -even for sites with a reasonable number of ratings. If most raters like having a swimming pool at their hotel and I just do not want to pay for one and would rather have 24 hr check in then, when looking at the average ratings, I need to take into account that most people rate hotel pools highly. Similarly with "Community" average attitudes to Modern Architecture, Cities, getting to hard to reach places, wine areas, cathedrals etc etc
Regarding this year's additions - we had previously been quite excited about the number of "Top 50 missing" and I had wondered how much this had filtered through to our reviews - In fact the average is down a bit over previous years. This, in my view correctly, reflects the fact that there are also more and more rather mediocre, very poor and duplicate sites being added each year.