I'm going to have to go with most of what Brad Klein says. The ratings haven't hurt the advancement of architecture, and have only called attention to the divergent styles of various archies, not a group think approach to design.
Where GCA does benefit is not group think, but collaboration between major archies and constructors from time to time. i.e., the working of guys like Doak with Nicklaus where JN openly admits a new awareness of greens construction and design approaches by virtue of his collaboration with Tom. This is seen in many other cross pollenizations of teams from C&C personnel going with Doak, Liddy using fitters frin other camps, and Dye spinning out assoiciates, etc. So, no convergence, just collaborative thinking and working to make better technique and share ideas that work.
Ratings, I love 'em and hate 'em. Case in point is my immediate gawffaw at BallyNeal coming in 6. But, wait a minute, I didn't see any others! (probably never will). So, while it seems like ratings can't be nearly correct and are based on something (no matter what they claim) other than a pure look at GCA, they still call attention to golf course archtecture in a way that illuminates the profession. How many people are truly going to be able to play and compare the top lists that come out every year, year after year. That is a lot of courses that one would need to see to get a true picture of the accuracy of the lists.
I'm glad for the web-links provided to the websites of the latest new courses and category lists in Golf Digest. That way, we can go see a picture like Mike Sweeney posted above, and be outraged that 'this' is considered "best new affordable". It is the paradoxical value that tells us the list is somehow screwed up, yet is a beacon to those of us interested in seeing what courses of relative merrit are out there to be explored, so that we can affirm our suspicions that the raters are full of crap, or conversely that we once again should be cautioned from judging by photos or lists.
At the end of the day, I'll still give far more credence to the narrative report of trusted and valued golf architecture architecture fans and critics that I may know, than the value of any list, no matter which magazine.