Thanks! The list is actually interesting, and will lure me off other things I was supposed to be doing. ;)

But there does appear to be trouble brewing.

Author Tom Ewer says the list is based on "publically available data". He says the order of the entries is "completely objective". And he mentions that there is an "algorithm". But none of these aspects of the project are exposed or otherwise in evidence.

Read some of the comments, and it becomes clear that others are noticing.

Tom responds that he couldn't rank any French sites, because he doesn't speak or read French. If it's data-based, and objective, how are his language skills an issue? If he has to read the site, that would be subjective, eh?

Repeatedly, visitors complain that his list does not reflect their impressions of reality. Tom responds, 'Submit your site for consideration in the next list!'

But, but ... wasn't this already supposed be the real deal?
=====

Hey, this is a valuable list - I don't care if Tom pulled it outa thin air or from where the sun don't shine. But Tom does appear to be playing ball ... with a hornet's nest.

Fugitabout the list. Go check out the comment-action.