Elaborating on my points above to give more precise information: 1) the fact that SSR has been open such a short period of time makes any rating of the resort at this point somewhat suspect, especially given the lead time in magazine publishing; 2) the methods used are surveys of Conde Nast readers--generally, such surveys come with explicit instructions to only rate those places you have stayed; 3) there is no normalizing of ratings that goes on, so if someone has not stayed at any of the other hotels that would be candidates there rating cannot be put into context nor does the rater have anything to compare to; 4) given the time frame of the survey and ratings, I would venture a guess that most people who responded are SSR owners--cognitive dissonance theory tells you that owners will generally have higher ratings than non-owners given the proximity of the rating period to the time of purchase. Understand that I am not dissing SSR, I'm just saying that it is now apparent that some of CNT's ratings are flawed (the cruise ship ratings of the Magic and Wonder are inexplicable, frankly, on several dimensions). In this case, SSR should probably not have been eligible for another year. Then, if it makes it, there would certainly be less argument.
