While I like the “rate 2 games against each other” idea for determing overall game popularity, the main issue I see is people expecting the top 100 to be more than it is. It’s a highly flawed popularity contest where newer and more readily available games, or games with a large amount of group-think hype will always score higher.
Taken in aggregate, most of the games on there probably belong, looking too closely (TNA is 2 slots higher than TWD, or whatever) is just silly. It’s not a high precision system.
Really the comments are more useful than the numbers (well the ones that go beyond “best game eva!l)
And it only takes the slighest modicum of critical thinking to realize that newer games that aren’t complete trash always pop higher than they will eventually land. What’s the big deal? Nice for them gain some attention while they are still being made instead of years later when you can’t buy them NiB anymore.
Frankly, I wish certain podcasts would STFU talking up how good some of the early SS games are and let those of us with refined tastes fill out our collections inexpensively while all the nubies scramble to pay fortunes for the “top 10” games.