We had very good dinners at both Pujol and Quintonil--though I actually preferred Biko, which now is closed.

I don't take any rankings as literally accurate, instead preferring to think of broad categories of excellence. No. 5 and No. 48 can be comparably good, just as No. 3 and No. 86; it's always relative. Geranium was one of the most impressive dinners I ever had, and it was ranked #48 and had only 2 stars at the time. Now it's ranked higher by both Pellegrino and Michelin. Perhaps the rankings now of Geranium are more reflective of reality than they were back then? Who can say. Either way, Geranium likely is just as good today as it was when I dined there, despite its ranking and star count being different.

That's why I don't care much about the difference between 2 and 3 Michelin stars (looking at you, Atelier Crenn, which deserves 3 to me) and don't care much about the relative ranking on lists like Pellegrino (looking at you, Dinner by Heston Blumenthal and St Johns, which were horrible). More like Michelin stars denote broad categories of excellence, with many restaurants being considered comparable in terms of quality. Even so, people always will have their favorites and preferences, and different scenarios can result in people having varying opinions on the same restaurant at different times.