I think some of the shocks that readers express are due to a bit of a misunderstanding about draft ratings. I get the impression that they are thinking of the ranking as something like the college football team weekly rankings. So, if team A is rated 22nd initially and they have a good week, they may go up to,oh, #18 next week. And if they win again, they'll go up to maybe #15 the week after. The notion of a #22 team going all the way to #1 next week is pretty much impossible.
Draft rankings are much different. It is worldwide crapshoot of individuals for a good part of the year. Player X isn't seen too much except by one individual for half a season so you give him a cautious rating but then he shows all the other scouts what he's made of, under pressure, and he can definitely rise all the way to #1 within the space of a few weeks.
Likewise with dropping (a la Backlund). The intitial October ranking are a real shot in the dark, based on last season when the players in question really weren't being scrutinized much. Gradually, as it becomes apparent that the initial ranking wasn't accurate, the player could easily slip all the way out of the top 200 (a la Ruzicka last year). 17-18 year old players world wide, on many different stages, with just 6-8 months to prove themselves, yeah- it means that rankings are naturally volatile. In fact, I'd say that some of them are a little too conservative at times.
I put Turris as #1 about a month back, with Cherepanov top 5 (and even potential #1) and
i top 10. A lot of people thought that was too radical but I think it seems pretty reasonable now (although I may have overrated JVR it seems). I put them in those positions because of what I had seen and heard from scouts- not based on adjustments from what many seem to see as almost "canonical" October rankings.
Don't be surprised if one or two months from now some guy you've never or barely ever heard of breaks top 10 ground. It happens every year.