Can't you just see these books as "really good examples of___ that we thought others might like" rather than "best of", while understanding that "Best of" is much better branding and more likely to attract readers? Getting hung up on the title of a book will get you in trouble with regard to enjoying what is inside.

It's like critics who get hung up on "best film of..." and spend perennial columns talking about how such a thing is beneath them, (followed by their picks) instead of just having fun with it, and realizing that they're good opportunities for them to call attention to something that resonated with them in a personal way. It's not important that those lists are always wrong.