Well, I think Starbucks coffee is sub par:  should I start my own coffee
corporation?

The bottom line is that despite your chivalry, these sites are still trying
to make money.  Some of them started as pure hobbyist nonprofit-type sites,
but most have now taken on advertising/banner ads and commissions on
pricewatch-type-links.  In fact, one of them (I forget the name), has most
of the sample pictures taken in Stanford University housing and campus (I
used to live there).  If you think that isn't a Stanford guy trying to get a
startup going, then you haven't met a Stanford student in the past ten
years.  This doesn't mean that the people who started these sites aren't
geniune camera enthusiasts, but to criticize me for pointing out their
limitations is as silly as suggesting I should shut up and do it myself
rather than harbor a criticism.

I wish the sites had more access to keeping cameras around.  There are some
inherent limitations in their money -- I'll grant you that-- but it does
create a limitation for putting up sample pictures of the same outdoor
fixture taken from different spots on different days with different zooms.
If you had an inventory of some of the cameras around, then you could do
true side by side comparisons, not virtual ones.  At this point, none of the
review sites cited here regularly (and uncritically) compare with an
Anandtech or TomsHardware for managing some objective side by side
comparisons.

I will repeat my criticism as well that they tend to get vague on such
issues as camera noise and low light focusing, when in my opinion, these
issues warrant more effort than taking photos of every menu option.

That's my opinion.

Oh, and the superautomatic espresso machines Starbucks now use make an
inferior espresso.

Cordo