Dog Food Analysis Website Grading System

I've reviewed some feeds of interest on the dog food analysis website, these are feeds that I've both used and I'm considering sticking with for awhile, but I was wondering how they both rated the feeds are "Diamond Naturals Chicken and Rice formula" and the "Dick Van Patton's Ultra Active formula". If you look at the two feeds, the Natural Balance has a higher rating than that of the Diamond Naturals Chicken and rice, but when I compared the ingredients it was like looking at the same feed in different bags. I was wondering if the author of the dog food analysis website was bias towards certain brands b/c when you look at the ingredients of the two listed feeds the similarity is very striking. While the author goes on to question the actual ingredient listing in his/her review of the Diamond Naturals Chicken and rice, there's no discussion or review of the "Natural Balance" which would lead me to believe that the ingredients used in the natural balance are somehow superior do that of that Diamond Naturals due to the direct criticism the author gave and questioning of the actual use of the meat based proteins in the Diamond Naturals. And also after reviewing a few of the feeds I realized that the author has not tried many of the feeds listed on the website, not to be negative, but how can the author base results on feeds untested? Are there any dog food analysis sites out there that I can research where the author has actually tested the feed that he/she reviews?

I personally don't believe nor think THEY even think that THEY are the "authorities". as stated in that web site they say, and i quote: "Rather, the intent of this site is to give an assessment of the various commercial foods available, based on the ingredient information given by the manufacturer. No food can magically be better than the ingredients used to make it".

Again, they BASE their opinions on the ingredient info, produced by the manufacturers OWN printed info. and again, it's an assessment~not an "authority"'s opinion. They also freely state: ". Until or unless the percentages of the ingredients are required to be shown on the ingredient lists or manufacturers disclose that information voluntarily, it can only ever be an educated guess or assessment, based on the knowledge that we do have". therefore, imo, they publically state how they formulate their opinions.
therein, as, an "educated guess". NOT one of authority. and they also state that they are a small team of volunteers. so, if~
AFTER reading ALL of the info they readliy supply, you are STILL inclined to believe/agree with all you see and read, then and ONLY then should you count their opinion as valuable. sorry, but to proclaim that THEY think THEY are the authorites only goes to show me that more reading needs to be done, as they (that web site) are simply giving opinions~for you to agree or NOT agree with. it's simply YOUR choice to count THEIR opinions as valuable or not. again, i personally do NOT feel they are self proclaimers of anything.
ask 10 different people about something and you'll probably get 10 different replies. same type of thing here..... the website is one of analysis NOT authority, based on what the manufacturers, themselves put into their own feed.
take it or leave it.
and if any doubt about their personal experience with specific feed, why not email them with specific questions. i imagine if they personally do not know the answers, they can get in contact with someone who does.

i think it's mostly in part, due to other people doing the "leg work", if you will, for them. i know, based on their history and the boxer site they affiliate themsleves with, that there is a lot of discussion on that site regarding feed, and such, and therefore, as i recall, that analysis site was a spin off due to all the talk, inquiries and concerns about dog food and what's best to feed. so, a few members statrted up that site and based on feed back they were getting from their forum members, then decided to venture into an analysis site, again, as mentioned, basing their info primarily off of what the manufacturers list on their products.
it's a handy site, imo, but like all else is, it's simply other people's opinions. i do think it's a good reference site, as i personally do not have the time to go thru so many manufacturers products to see what ingredients they happen to put into their feed. again, this site just saves us, the consumers the trouble of having to look at each individual product. instead they're all just nicely formatted onto/into a site which makes comparisons easier and more accessible.
and i spose some people may choose to swear by this site, or take their opinions of feed as gospel, but
if you read all the fine print, you'll soon learn that the opinions don't necessarily come from "experts" but meerly from common/ordinary people who have a real concern regarding what does get put into feed.