I recall reading that article when it first came out. Aren't the ball ratings based on the category (cost range) they are in. The Q-Star Tour gets a 5* rating in it's category (mid-range cost) but I don't believe they are saying it's a better ball than one that is rated 4.5* in the higher priced category.
You could very well be right, though Golf Digest doesn't state that anywhere I could find. What they did publish was
"When we asked golfers to evaluate golf balls for this year's Hot List—our overarching guidance was: "Rate these balls based on how much you would want to play them compared to your current ball" - leaving "in it's category" undefined? With all the ad money on the table they wouldn't dare say
directly that a cheaper ball was better than any premium Titleist, Callaway, TaylorMade.
The ratings appear to be largely subjective and they’re weighted using performance, innovation, feel and demand (shouldn't be included IMO). On average, the
Over $35 category has the highest performance and overall ratings, the
$25 and Under category has the lowest performance and overall ratings, and the
$26-$35 category falls in between - but to be honest the margins are so slim you could call them even. However, more often than not price correlates to performance and overall ratings for any given ball maker - as I would expect.
At any rate, the Snell MTB and the Srixon Q-Star Tour got the highest ratings in the mid cost category, if not overall. Guess I need to try the Srixon Q-Star Tour, once I lose the 5 dozen Snell MTB's I already have.
I need the weather to break more often so I can get out and play more golf! Cabin fever gets worse every year...