By design, Golf Digest has a staticly convergent list. By this I mean GD's list is asymptotically converging to an unchanging or "frozen" list. That's why each year it will be more and more difficult to displace the previous year's GD top 100 (thus the Chambers and Ballyneal issue).
Golf Magazine suffers the same problem.
Golfweek has two lists and is confronted with slightly different issues.
The GW classical list is completely static - any movement in the rankings is due to the few redesigns of classical courses or just plain ranking panel measurement noise - the subjectivity in resolution of the rater postings. Updating the classical list on an annual basis is mostly a fruitless venture – we learn nothing new.
GW's modern list is also statically convergent, but it has much longer before it converges (early on the asymptotic curve). New courses are able to make a splash, fade, re-climb, or be booted off all because the GW modern list is the only list with "room" for new course. It is easily the most “interesting” of all the lists posted.
JC