There's a good thread of thought in it, that rankings, scores, etc are deeply reductive. They say describe the text instead.

I think it fails to address the big reason rankings and favorites are so appealing: our time in life is limited. Yes, sure ideally tell me about the text of the book and let me decide. Even more ideally, let me read every book in fullness and judge for myself. But someone hightlighting their favorites or giving their top 10 for a subject gives you a starting point. No one has time to read a blurb about every book in the world. But I can look at your 10 Books List and see if I want to know more about them. Sure, by all means say more, but the real signal there is "I liked this book so I'm saying something about it".

The article also weirdly frames it as some capitalist thing, when imo it's just a human thing. We like ranking stuff, and we have no choice but to prioritize some books and never read others.

It gets worse, NY time best sellers and other can be gamed by the author buying bulk, some get astericks, if they’re caught. It’s all legal.

In capitalist sites, sure.
In topics you're researching, live savers:
Why would I look for research about Walrus on the How-To section on arts&crafts?

I was just thinking about this the other day. Comparison was the most basic level of analysis when I was learning about English in 4th grade, and I distinctly remember how many students never got past that point. Every assignment, they'd just do the same thing, and accept the points they lost. It never made sense to me