>Is it purely rando[m] what editors look at, or is there a listing of areas needing attention that might ultimately get this looked at?
I've used this analogy before, but
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041107180408325
describes a book that presents the approach more rigorously.
From the outside, it will almost surely look random. (Really narcissistic people tend to interpret that random neglect of themselves as a malicious action. Sane people can usually somehow work their way through to a better understanding -- neglect is not an action, and the fact is that every editor neglects millions of sites every day, so no single site can possibly be singled out.)
On the inside, we probably have fewer bees that do the pollen dance than your average hive, but the effects of foraging parties formed around persuasive pollen dancers is not totally negligable.