On the contrary, give it a few more pages and dozens of successfull models (and almost every niche model) will be listed with a cry fest of people that didn't understand the concept for whatever reason.
I don't see this as being very constructive.
Many people live in areas where test rides are difficult to arrange, and thus base their purchasing decisions on what they
read in bike magazines or on web forums. For example, this was my situation with my first bike. I lived in a remote northern region in Canada and it was difficult to arrange a test ride. Thus I turned to the forums and to magazine reviews. At the time the Suzuki DL 650 was one of the most raved about bikes, and so I just bought one -- no test ride. Since I had committed to buy it, and didn't want to go through the purchasing process again I just rode it and rode it. I owned it for five years and put 50 000 kilometers on it. In hindsight, I think it was a bit over rated. The suspension was really poor, and while it had bullet proof reliability it wasn't very exciting to ride. So, here is my point. Bike forums tend to be filled with people who have 'committed' to a bike and thus protect it to some extent ie. don't emphasize how bad the suspension really is. Bike magazines often have certain biases as well. They are marketing tools, and thus tend to favor bikes which are pushing boundaries/categories or bikes which are pushing the market forward technologically. In the case of the DL 650, in 2004 and 2005 it was pushing the 'adventure/touring' category. I remember Cycle World running an article in 2005 or 2006 proclaiming the DL650 as possibly one of the best bikes ever. They had someone jumping rail road tracks with it, going on and on about how well it corned, and noting its off-road capability. It think this really was an overstatement, and would have appreciated a thread just like this which highlighted bikes that people wanted to like, but having tried them, just couldn't go with the hype of the moment.