Here's an absolute classic example of what I mean:
Galaxy Nexus HSPA+ review -- Engadget
In summary, what I took from the review:
Mediocre camera at a mediocre (for a flagship device) 5MP
Software bugs (light sensor, volume issues)
Cheap look and feel for an expensive high-end device
No removable storage (unusual for Android)
You have to manually activate hardware accelerated 2D graphics to get better performance (!)
Learning curve to the OS for both previous Android users and first-time users
"it still feels geared towards people like us: the nerdy, tech-savvy, geeky and power-hungry set"
The one out-and-out selling point is the massive screen (and even that is non-Gorilla Glass).
Verdict? Possibly the best phone of all time!
How?
How??? How can that conclusion come from a phone with all the issues listed above? Answer: because geeks review stuff for themselves, and give high scores to devices that make them geek out. The average person in the street, when they get sold a Galaxy Nexus, won't care about the power underneath. They'll care that they get an average, plasticy cameraphone with a screen that isn't as tough as some others and an unintuitive OS that they spent a fortune on.
I think tech sites should start hiring their writers' parents as secondary reviewers. Then I think we'd see quite a shift in reviews...