Authored lists mostly confirm the community list

Player, creator, and media rankings were worth checking. They do not look worth turning into a separate leaderboard.

Community Consensus External check Rankings unchanged

The site already has a Community Consensus page: title-by-title rankings built from fan and community sources. The open question was whether authored lists from players, creators, and media add a different signal.

Mostly, they do not. The authored lists are useful, but as validation. When independent player/media lists and community lists keep landing on the same names, the community list gets more credible. It does not need a second, parallel version saying almost the same thing.

What was checked

Two authored source families were clean enough to compare:

Those lists were compared with the existing community Top 5 or Top 10 for the same title.

The result

Where they differ

The misses are normal boundary and ordering debates, not a different theory of the season.

Recommendation

Keep the community list as the ranking.

Do not add an authored-list leaderboard right now. It would create a second concept with almost the same output, weaker sample logic, and more caveats.

Do not quietly roll authored lists into the community score either. A player video, a media Top 20, and a community survey are different kinds of evidence. Blending them would require arbitrary weights, and the result would barely change.

Use authored lists as corroboration: mention them in methodology, keep the source inventory for auditability, and call out exceptions only when an authored source clearly disagrees with the community list.

References