(Click to enlarge)
Can anyone interpret how AdAge determined their Top 10 list for "outstanding accomplishment, growth, business and buzz among magazines?" Sure, it's been a tough year fiscally for all publications, but listicles in general are tough if they rely on "fuzzy math" to determine criteria such as oustandingness and growth.

Just looking at the front two contestants, The Economist and Women's Health, you see that while both publications saw a general increase in sales, ad pages, and subscriptions, WH had much larger percentage increases than The Economist in every category. The Economist may have had more ad pages overall, but they are still far below the numbers of New York magazine or Conde Nast Traveler, who nonetheless saw decreases in their pages and are featured much lower on the Top Ten list.

Make up your mind, AdAge: either create an easy formula for quantifying a magazine's success and share it with the rest of the class, or think of a more inventive way to celebrate magazines than another useless list that is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.