When I read reviews, I generally like to stick with the objective facts rather than the subjective feedback from the reviewer. If the review is simply subjective...I barely even bother with it.
For bikes, I understand that it's hard to get excited about a bike if all you do is list the objective facts as compared to say a Garmin bike computer. People like the terms stiff, compliant, integrated, aero, responsive, nimble, comfortable, sleek, blah, blah, blah.
I would much rather prefer a bike reviewer just do the following.
- Provide the complete bike weight, frame weight and weight of any proprietary parts that can't be swapped out
- Tell me what type of carbon is used, and what the layup process is. Not that I would know the difference, but it's a more factual description than stiff, compliant, etc.
- Full spec sheet for drivetrain, bearings, stem, saddle, bars, tape, cables, etc.
- Differences in crank arm, bar width, and stem lengths for eacy size bike
- Full geometry specs
- Actual measurement of space at the fork and stays for tire clearance. 38 mm clearance at the stays and 42 mm clearance at the fork is much more helpful than "most 28 mm tires and some 30 mm tires will fit with plenty of room."
- How are the cables routed
- QR or what type of axles used if it's a disc brake bike
- Any type of aero data done by an independent tester
Then have the reviewer ride the bike for a period of time, and just report back if it rode like a normal bike or not. That parts were not rattling, the seat post wasn't slipping, or the bottom bracket wasn't making some annoying noises. Give me that type of review on all the bikes coming out this year and going forward and I can make a pretty good judgement for myself on how to compare bikes based on the features I value.
I think DC Rainmaker (and people similar to him) get a lot of praise for their reviews because they stick to the objective facts, and then compare those facts with other brands that compete with the product they are reviewing. That way it's much easier to draw simple subjective conclusions on what is better, or has more value based on what key features matter to you. Granted, electronic devices are much easier to be objective with when listing out specs and performance. I can objectively tell you how long it took before a battery died, or how long it took a unit to gain GPS signal compared to another unit turned on at the same time. Or show the GPS map of what the unit recorded as compared to the actual road or trail that was ridden on.
But even with things like golf clubs...a lot of reviews by golf publications will be subjective or seem objective with no way to prove it. Terms like longer, more forgiving, better feel, higher launch, less spin, lower center of gravity, blah, blah, blah. When in reality, it's not that hard to take these clubs to that robotic hitting machine and hooking it up to a $20k launch monitor. Hit 50 balls dead center on the face, 50 on the toe, 50 on the heel, 50 low on the face, and 50 high on the face. Then display all the average stats in terms of ball speed, launch angle, spin, side spin, carry distance, total distance, and distance L/R from the target line. Now compare that to all the data on the other clubs released this year and in the past. Simple right...but not sexy when it turns out that there is less than a 1% difference in performance between all current clubs or clubs that came out last year. Those type of reviews don't get readers excited to read your review, nor do they sell clubs. The people that do these types of reviews are not motivated by club sales or sponsorship.