It may have been enjoyable, but it had so much misinformation that it really wasn't very useful.
The fact that he rated all clans from such a small difference in quality (I see Chris quoted my primary issue with the ratings) made it quite impractical. For example, CORP and WG were essentially put in the same tier (pretty sure that was a bias there). Looking at it from the perspective of diplomacy vs. strategy-based clans, CORP is clearly lacking in the same figures that WG has (recognition as a good diplomacy clan among one of them). Yet, they are still rated the same as WG. Similarly, The Royal Falcons are rated worse than DARKLORDS even though they probably have a more cohesive and collective community. It was an entirely opinionated affair that was not executed very well.
"The other issue is the host did not contact the clan leader at all. If this is done right, you'd contact the clan leader for a summary of the goals/message/plan for the clan (if not defined on their web page well). It is not much of a microscope if you are guessing at what the clan is about. I remember some leaders had to correct the host on who runs the clan and things like that. We had to correct the WG one because the method of formation was not known to the host."
I agree with the majority of that statement. The ratings were pure guesswork for the most part or slightly biased; the only way any clear ratings could have been made was if the rater put alts in each clan and judged them after a week or so (which would have been extremely inefficient). Getting information from the clan leader would certainly be more accurate, but there's always the problem that they could lie or select information that shows them in a better light than they really are.
To be honest, I don't think anyone is qualified to put out such ratings. There would be too much bias (which was evident in the "X-Factor" category for the original "Under the Microscope" threads) given towards clans based on the rater's whims. If anything, a clanless player should be the one to rate clans, as they should not be biased towards any one clan. Still, even with proper research, a correct rating of clans is purely subjective, and thus they cannot be accurately created.
The M'Hunters one was a fluke, done by an alt of an M'Hunters player bragging about his clan. Same with the Paper Tigers.