I think we need both, an expert opinion and public input. Top 100 Golf tries to juggle those two and the balance may not be ideal, but it's a work in progress and it needs input, especially of the critical sort. I suppose the critics aren't saying "it can't be done at all, don't even try", but "let's have more expert input and less public". I suppose they think that the rankings would look a lot different then (and better)?
Well, if that were the case, that the rankings done by one person (expert) looked a lot different than those done by 99 persons (public), then we would have a problem! Because, as David already said, those 99 persons are the ones the website is for. Even if we forget about advertising and target markets, it would still the case that a website like Top 100 Golf caters to every golfer out there, not just a minority of experts (like perhaps GCA does).
If a reader of the Top 100 Golf site played an "expert recommended" course and didn't like it, then the site would be of questionable value to this reader - and probably 99% of readers.
So the job of the experts is to produce a decent ranking, where 99% of the readers will not be disappointed by going for the higher ranked course over a lower ranked one. But there also needs to be an element of "popular recognition" - if a course gets many six balls reviews, that means many happy players on that course. It needs to be reflected in the rankings, if a lot of people are having a lot of fun there!
Ulrich