However, your lack of participation in the original poll is one of the reasons why it is so flawed. Not that it wouldn't still have been flawed--but by not registering your views and advocating for those films, you withheld a viewpoint that could have actually registered in the poll.
Let's use NOTORIOUS as the example for this. (BTW, it is not absent from the 2005 poll results, it's just way too far down the list. There are two reasons for this, which I'll cover a bit later).
If you'd voted and placed NOTORIOUS in your 1-5 group at that time, it would have received an additional 25 points in the ballot results. Given that we had just 25 participants, your ballot would have had reasonably significant weight--close to 4% of the vote (point total).
NOTORIOUS would then have 31 points, which would move it into the low-to-mid 60s on the poll results. At that point, it is virtually certain to receive support from the revisers where it would move strongly up the list, much in the fashion of what happened in the case of FORCE OF EVIL.
Now, even that is not necessarily a sufficient revision for NOTORIOUS in the context of the poll. To do that, we would really have to conduct an entirely new poll with more explicit instructions about what's eligible (which is the other reason for its low showing--even now, as in 2005, there is some confusion and doubt as to whether Hitchcock films should be counted as "noir"--again, more on that at the conclusion of this post).
I should note at this point that my list of films that received unanimous or near-unanimous upward or downward revisions (films judged to have been underrated or overrated) was incomplete. I left off titles that fell below a certain point total. But all of the films were considered, even those which received only a single honorable mention. At a later point I'll publish that list (which, as you might expect, is complete a list of films that were underrated--as so many were due to the flawed and incomplete nature of the original exercise). As most will anticipate, however, NOTORIOUS was one of the films that was unanimously considered to have been underrated.
That is why, way back when, seeing my disconnect in advance from the Blackboard, I opted out of listing top drawer noirs that were outside the hardboiled paradigm, which has been so heels-dig-inly represented thus far.
There were plenty of "unorthodox" votes in the original Top 25 poll. And there was clearly an insufficient recognition of the "woman in peril" subtype--but one reason for that is that the leading exponent of that type declined to make his voice heard in the poll!
As for spy noirs, even you did not know of the existence of most of those films in 2005! That is a more global oversight due to incomplete information, and is much more understandable than the problems in the poll for NOTORIOUS, GASLIGHT, REBECCA, SUSPICION, etc.
But note that three of these four just mentioned are Hitchcock films. At least as important at the time, and probably more of a problem now than the "woman in distress" question, is how to treat Hitchcock in the context of noir. That clearly resulted in a number of Hitchcock films underperforming in the 2005 poll--with NOTORIOUS being among the most prominent.
But two people stuck their necks out in the context of that poll and placed VERTIGO in their 1-5 slot. Only three people voted for VERTIGO in the poll, but it received 60 points, giving it the third highest point/vote ratio in the poll (behind only OUT OF THE PAST and DOUBLE INDEMNITY). That placed it into the mid-40s of the poll results, and gave revisers a fighting chance to move it further up the list in 2015.
Please don't think I'm defending the poll. We need to do a new poll, with different guidelines. But such isn't currently feasible, and it might not be for some time to come.
Some good news vis-a-vis Hitchcock and noir comes from NC 16, where SHADOW OF A DOUBT, another woman-in-distress film, is featured. (Though Eddie probably had no choice, since he needed a 1943 film for a Saturday night...but it's still some kind of vote of confidence for the woman-in-distress noir. And Eddie has been pretty good about showing those films, even though one could also see many of them as "homme fatal" films--Joe Cotten is a pretty creepy character in SHADOW OF A DOUBT). But the problem for a noir programmer, and more obliquely for those ranking noirs, is that Hitchcock's ubiquity tends to overwhelm any and all concepts of noir. And that is one reason why I suspect that NOTORIOUS will always rank lower in a "noir poll" than should be the case, despite its obvious high level of quality. (And that's why it, along with REBECCA and VERTIGO, haven't yet found their way into the NC lineup.)
But you really should (have) vote(d), Dan. The parallels with what happened in the 2016 election are just too obvious to ignore...in our case, in the noir poll, we were sincere but misguided. If only that were the case in the other situation...