Critiquing the Critiquers
Consumers understandably seek fair and impartial evaluations of products. The Internet affords abundant opportunity to read about pros and cons. However, anyone, irrespective of their qualifications, can post an opinion or even create a review website with themselves as the "expert."
Printed words and polished websites create credibility where there may not be any whatsoever. For example, the opinion of someone who owns a website but has never been on a cruise ship or to its destinations should not be relied upon to advise you on your trip.
To the point of our topic. Someone with no education or experience in the technologies important to commercial pet food production (which does not equate to simply having fed pets) should not be relied upon to choose a pet food.
More important than the competency of product critics are the criteria used. Using automobile paint color to rate horsepower is absurd. Likewise, criteria that have nothing to do with pet health, but simply embrace urban legends (having no empirical or scientific backing) are likewise absurd.
Only when the criteria being used to rate pet foods are properly evaluated can the value of the site intended to rank pet foods be determined.
With these thoughts in mind, evaluate pet food reviewers and rankers based upon their competency and experience in nutrition, biochemistry, health sciences, epigenetics, nutrigenomics, toxicology, nutraceuticals, food chemistry, processing technology, and the criteria they use to measure pet foods.
Proper criteria to determine the healthiness of pet foods can be found here