Gather round, boys and girls, and let me tell you a little story. Once upon a time, I bought a copy of Ride mag. I was particularly interested in an article that they were running which purported to compare a number of road wheelsets. Specifically, I was interested in what they had to say about Ksyrium SL's. The "first person" review that appeared in Ride mag was a verbatim reproduction of the review that was on cyclingnews.com. Not similar. Not almost the same, but word for word. Plagiarism sucks. I sent an email to the editor, and received an assurance that the matter would be investigated. The next month the editorial mentioned that they had received letters from riders complaining that some of the reviews had been lifted from cyclingnews.com and pezcyclingnews.com but that no action had been taken because the contributor had very muscly legs. WTF!!! I paid money for something that was not delivered. A review should be written by somebody who has the technical understanding to get a feel for what is going on and the verbal skills to impart that to others. I don't give a rat's how fast the reviewer can ride, or whether they can kick my or the editor's ass on or off the bike. All I care about is that the review should give me his or her impressions of the product being reviewed. Rant over. I happily subscribe to Bicycling. A lot of it is aimed at newcomers to the sport, there is very little courage of racing but it is well laid out, nicely illustrated and every now and then they run an article that makes it all worthwhile.
