Most hadith scholars such as imam Ahmad, abu Dawod, an-Nasa-i (who has been said to reach the level of al-Bukhari and having even reached a higher level than Muslim -see the later quot from a-Dhahabi's siyar a'alam an-Nubala'), ibn Majah and at-Tirmidhi had deep knowledge in hadith.
ولم يكن أحد في رأس الثلاث مائة أحفظ من النسائي ، هو أحذق بالحديث وعلله ورجاله من مسلم ، ومن أبي داود ، ومن أبي عيسى ، وهو جار في مضمار البخاري ، وأبي زرعة ، إلا أن فيه قليل تشيع وانحراف عن خصوم الإمام علي ، كمعاوية وعمرو ، والله يسامحه . (Source: Syiar a'laam an-Nubala' or here سير أعلام النبلاء)
This statements sets an-Nasa-i more or less equal (one could say close) to al-Bukhari and abu Zura'a in the knowledge of hadith and it's issues and 'ilm ar-Rijal and clearly sets him higher than Muslim, abu Dawood and abu 'Isa at-Tirmidhi. The only objection one may have is his tendency to set 'Ali ibn abi Talib () higher than his oponentes Mo'awiyah and 'Amr ibn al-'Aas.
Why they nevertheless quoted in their compilations da'if narrations?