Few ideas about analysis and presentation. First, if you want to reach better skiers, don't dumb things down by conflating many variables into terms like "corduroy" or "off-piste." Try to keep variables separated, so that readers can see SCORES on specifics like bumps, ice, crud, heavy pow, soft groomed, and make up our own minds. If you want to create true composite variables, like "overall versatility," there a better ways of doing it (poll takers do this all the time). Go talk to a budy who studies statistics about a factor analysis. Sounds complicated, easy to present as a simple graph.
Second, modern ski performance is very length sensitive. So always list the length of the ski with the height, weight and ability (if you're using a range, like Realskiers) of who tested that exact length. Current mags all make a stab at some version of this, usually involving quotes or personal high scores, but don't let you in on who specifically gave which length what scores. Ski Canada comes closest. And a heavy male tester might love a length ski that a lighter female wouldn't. A blurb ("guys liked this more than gals...") isn't as useful as scores; Ski Press World is good in this regard. Last, use real world lengths, not whatever random stuff a rep shows up with (often the longest made). Ski Press World sucks in this regard.
Third, lose the cute that you see in rags like Ski. Serious skiers don't need analogies to soaring birds or snorting bulls.
Fourth, don't be coy. If a ski sucks in a particular area, don't just leave out a symbol or say, "it's best on xxxx." Give the scores for good and bad alike. If you're honest, people will come...
Fifth, not all boots fit all people. Devote some scores to how a boot fits different shapes of foot, how easy it is to dial in, how it feels after a day of hard charging.