I agree that many people run with unsubstantiated claims or "facts" and these eventually become part of the collective knowledge base. For example, the "double carbide bonds" bit is featured in Wikipedia (unsourced) and consequently found verbatim on 100+ websites. It's good to let people know where misinformation lies so why not provide an alternative (i.e. facts)? Interesting article but my first question was, "well, why don't you do something better?". Then I saw your 6 points on why you haven't done a better comparison, which was a good response to the invariable question that came to my mind, but not too convincing. It is easy to critique the work of others and this might serve as a prodromus to your future work, but without providing a better alternative and being a bit snarky it seems a bit empty. For example, Elmax is produced by Bohler-Uddenholm, an Austrian company, albeit the steel is produced in Sweden.
It is good that you held some of these lists and their makers to task but I'm sure (or hope) that the average reader knows they aren't reading a peer-reviewed publication written by an authority when they see such lists on hobby websites. Lets face it, knife reviews even by the good guys are basically about aesthetics, finish, and possibly the ability to cut paper, cardboard, and rope. Maybe I'm one of the few, but I don't really take much of this kind of stuff to heart, but I do find it entertaining and it does open my eyes a little.
Knives are ultimately a hobby for most people and while they want the facts, most people aren't willing to sift through peer-reviewed publications or white papers. Hence, an ordinal ranking is more desirable and digestible for the average person. I agree it is not ideal but you have to know who the audience and users are. If you inundate hobbyists with minutiae most will likely turn away; it doesn't mean they are uneducated or unwilling, but they'd probably just rather spend that time sharpening their knives than reading metallurgical theory.
