Since when and according to whom? I've been following this thread from the beginning on the assumption that the videos on the OP were held not just to a standard of viability, but to a standard of aesthetics as well. I'm not saying priority shouldn't be on viability, but given two videos of equal viability but differing aesthetic appeal, isn't the most appealing one definitively better?
You can even go one further: ultimately, a video where the winning player achieves his goal with that extra panache is better for a competitive community. If that player's actions truly are viable, then they can teach how to play a fast, aggressive game without sacrificing viability. Since the country's best players (M2K, Ally, ADHD) predominantly play with this style, doesn't it stand to reason that this style is the best? So shouldn't teaching how to play with this style without sacrificing viability be a goal?
So obviously the best vid of one composed of useless ATs that look cool, but has a style that lacks technique and leaves tons of openings? Or even that we should rate a vid of this style above a slightly better player without the visual appeal?
If it's two otherwise equal vids, and both are worthy of inclusion, pick both.
Visual paunche as a factor of importance is a matter for combo videos, not matches. Skill displayed in-match are what makes a match "good", not what "looks good", because that's what decides the only thing that really matters (other then the potential DQ) who shows up as a winner in the victory screen.
So, why suggest that they're the "best vids", that's not a proper teaching tool, not even on the principal that "aggression is bad" but instead, the principal that "aesthetics matter".
Sure, an aggressive style can be viable, certainly in certain match-ups.
But in match-ups where they try to force it, you'll often find top-level players switch to campy styles when threatened (m2k is particularly known for this).
Now, here's really the heart of the matter, if a playstyle that is visually appealing is the best, go for it, please. However, as soon as you start weighing visual appeal as a factor in skill, that's when the vids become useless as teaching tools. This is a tactical thread, people expect to be able to come here to see top of character's metagames, and judging them based by anything other then that does the players who will use it a great disservice.
We already have stuff that's judged on visual appeal, combo vids. But when it comes to match vids, like matches themselves, visual appeal shouldn't factor into the decision, not even as a tie-breaker