I’ve written before on this blog about my skepticism toward city livability rankings. Aside from Money Magazine, which I believe uses a sound methodology, I have little confidence in how most other organizations—particularly real estate websites—arrive at their scores.

My opinion was reinforced by an article in Monday’s edition of the Indianapolis Star, also posted on IndyStar.com. It focuses on the latest “Top 100 Best Places to Live” list from Livability.com. Fishers ranked fourth last year, yet didn’t even make the list this year.

Star reporter John Tuohy reached out to the City of Fishers for comment but received none—and it’s not hard to see why. The city likely had no idea why it was excluded, so what could they possibly say?

To get answers, Tuohy did what any good journalist should: he called Livability’s Editor-in-Chief, Amanda Ellis. Her explanation was surprising. Apparently, it’s all Carmel’s fault. Confused? Let me explain.

Ellis said Livability changed its ranking criteria this year. In an effort to feature a broader range of cities, they decided to limit their list to only one city per geographic area. According to Ellis, Carmel narrowly outscored Fishers, and under the new rules, that meant Fishers was bumped off the list entirely.

So, no, Fishers didn’t suddenly experience a decline in livability. It was simply the casualty of a rule change by Livability.com.

This isn’t an attack on Livability.com, but it does reaffirm my general policy of ignoring most of these rankings—Money Magazine being the exception.

John Tuohy’s article is a solid piece of journalism, and as of this writing, the Star does not have a paywall on the story. I encourage you to read it at this link.