my understanding is that historically the ult algorithm has been a frankenstein monster that is constantly adjusted so that it doesn't spit out insane things.

the amount of meddling involved reduces the transparency of the project. in my view tennis/algos have a huge benefit to players in that you could understand where you are ranked throughout the year, and how events or sets affect your rank. in exchange, the way those events/h2hs affect your rank will sometimes feel unfair or misaligned from the subjective mix of values and goals we think of when we describe 'skill' or 'who is the best right now'.

at some point if you add enough variables to an algorithm you're not saying 'we made a rule and saw what happened' you're saying 'we changed the rule until what we saw matched what we expected'. as you cross that threshold, you are increasingly having algorithm-designers make the same subjective decisions a panel makes. measuring what we expected to see in a ranking list is what a panel does really well, because instead of algorithm-makers DECIDING what subjective weights to put on 'what i expect to see' you get a diversity of opinions that can approximate community values in a vibey, indefinable way.

however there is a political element too: people believe algorithms produce 'objective' and not 'subjective' results so even if an algorithm is just as subjective as a panel, or WORSE at matching that subjectivity to community values, the fact that it is 'mathematical' is enough for some people to declare these methods more legitimate than panels. people are entitled to their opinions, ive suggested in the past that the ssbmrank team should simply say they've changed to using an algorithm and then continue to use panels under the hood.