I'm sorry, my question was ambiguous. I'm not asking how the list was generated. I'm asking how the person my comment was in reply to, who criticized it as being too ruby heavy, decided to base his criticism on the top 9 elements of the top 10 list instead of basing it on all 10.

The natural sample would have been all 10 items in the top 10. Cutting it off at the rather weird 9, especially considering that the 10th is not a ruby item, gives the appearance that he massaged the data to support his position.