With all lists, it is important to grasp the criteria in order to understand what the lists tell you.
Mac,
Nobly put and I agree to be sure, but let's live in reality. Readers aren't making the distinction you make above. I have NEVER seen a list produced by any publication from golf courses to diapers that doesn't imply that their list communicates the best of that genre. It's implicit in the techniques used to market and publish these lists that the list is arrived at with the best methods, and is therefore as infallible as these lists can be. This is why statisical analysis is so important to Digest, Links and GW, and also why it isn't so important to Golf and Golf Architecture. They all think they have it right.
Which is why none of them are right. Which is why composite lists of each magazine mean nothing. Which is why I'm inclined--less and less--to put any stock whatsoever in a ranking of golf architecture.
Ben...
You are correct, for the most part, I believe.
I disagree, at the margin, with you on this, however. I can't say there is no stock whatsoever in these lists. There is some reason why (aside from psychological and behavioral patterns) that lots of the same courses keep showing up again and again and again on these lists, despite changes in criteria. I think that reason is, the courses in question are really good!
Now, where they rank precisely on each and every list among with different sets of criteria is simply a matter of preference and bias.
And, of course, sometimes non-sensical noise enters the lists all to often.
But, again, I think your main points are correct. You've won me over on these points.