I think the state lists (Both Golfweek and Golf Digest) are limited as they reflect where the raters have been to play recently. I think the GD list is the worse because the raters tend to play the newest courses to the exclusion of the "second and third tier" older courses.
Golfweek is not immune to these factors, but whether all of the best courses are on any list is to be seen. (Point to be made)
There is a "taste" factor (Blonde, brunette, redhead) involved as well and a set of raters may or may not reflect your, my or the general public (Is that a GOOD thing?) taste.
States and styles get under or over represented (Geographical-I mean with all respect, without their having hosted majors, how many really top courses are in the _________ part of the country (Defusing mechanism).
Look at desert courses, for example
Golfweek doesn't currently have Desert Highlands and PGA West Stadium in the top 100 Modern (Both mistakes in my opinion) yet Estancia shows up at 30!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, etc.,,
I mean how the hell much variety is there in the desert when everybody knocks the hell out of Florida courses for flatness?
And convince me, really convince me that the Johnny-come-latelies are really better than the original, Desert Highlands. It is a really good course with great holes! (See, no Nicklaus bashing). And look at PGA West Stadium which only came in at 132 on the modern list.
I'm not so sure that the Classical list at 100 and the Modern list at 200 might really be more stimulating, since stimulation of thinking is really what these lists are about. I think that's one of the big reasons that there appears to be such volatility in the Modern list. It just may not be big enough.