Okay, since nobody has gone there:
1- The SF/F field is too big, too active for anybody to read *all* the new books coming out in a year. Without that, there can be no rational ranking of books by any meaning criteria. (This was true before the puppies.)
2- The term "best" is meaningless without several pages worth of qualifiers listing the criteria looked for and who gets to choose and who chooses the choosers.
(The Video Awards, regardless of what one might think of the winners, are thoroughly transparent on all counts. Literary Awards? Not so much.) Best? Says who? Best, how?
3- For a long time now Hugo winners have ceased to be representative of the field with extensive swaths of titles being *excluded* solely because of origins, subjects, or author. Without reading or evaluating. The awards are issued by a tiny clique of self-selected "critics", a narrow-minded monoculture out of phase with the vast majority of readers, something demonstrated by the goading of the "puppy rebellion" when the clique chose to ignore its own processes and vacate a category rather than recognize a winner at odds with their prejudices.
Does anybody believe that voters would even consider, if they were coming to market today, works like STARSHIP TROOPERS, ENDERS GAME, FOOTFALL, THE GODS THEMSELVES, RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA, TAU ZERO, THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, STARTIDE RISING, or FOUNDATION'S EDGE, among many winners and finalists still readable and still popular among readers today? Some of those authors are villified regularly for a variety of resons having nothing to do with the stories, which are actually better written, more thoughtful and above all more popular than most of the recent award "winners".
Because, it should be noted, HUGOS were intended as a *popularity* contest among *readers*. In contrast to the NEBULA AWARDS which were intended as a recognition of craftmanship from the *authors*.
But popularity with one small clique is meaningless when any other clique can issue their own awards with equal standing (Dragon Awards, from the DragonCon crowd) or when readers find their reads on their own, without guidance from any self-appointed "influencers". Who can be and often are just shills, as exposed by the Rebellion.
The field has evolved and diversified far beyond what any of the cliques can credibly proclaim. So people mostly go on with their lives, ignore HUGOS, DRAGONS, and (unavoidably) NEBULAS.
The entire AWARD system has lost relevance. The Puppy Rebellion was simply the last spasm that proved the system was long dead, even if it hung around out of inertia.
So, going back to the OP: the awards are issued but nobody posts about them because they are as relevant to today's reader as, say, Lake Woebegon's Teacher of the year. Most people just don't care. (Sorry.) A popularity award for books that aren't actually popular isn't particularly newsworthy.
Most of us can find our reads just fine without "influencers" and most won't even *like* what the clique likes.