Quote Originally Posted by Pinder View Post
I think it has to do with the fact that 'metagame information' can be entirely subjective. As far as I can tell, it used to be this way with the voting system they had in place for the adepts, but that lead to arguments and the like, so they settled on a system that was much more arbitrary. Currently all the system tells us is which decks are doing well on a consistent basis. Isn't that what it's supposed to do? It's there to tell us what's in the metagame, not to predict what might be. It's not a perfect system, to be sure, but it seems like when there was voting people were comlpaining the it wasn't objective enough, but now people are claiming that it's too objective. Is there no middle ground here?
Something else to keep in mind is that local-meta is not always going to be the meta that the Source shows us.

For example, I have seen so mmany random decks that consist mostly of mono-colored lands it actually weakened my UG Thresh-decks strategy for land-destruction. Too bad most of the decks were really bad with the exception of a mono-red goblin deck.