Not too disimilar to absinthehour, after spending so much time reading this thread, my two cents are coming at you:
Sitewise, an editor's review can and should be on top simply because they're a working member of a site and their opinion holds greater weight than the "nonworking" members (read customers). Not that their opinion can't be wrong or subject to high variability but that's a useful method for garnering respect as well as being a professional. Imagine a newspaper where they only had a call in section for the public to air grievances but never had a section for their editors or journalists for that matter--that newspaper would be a joke (or a shopper).
If the editor's judgement is wacked then the editor needs to be replaced by someone who has far better skills(I am by no means saying that the editor's judgement is wacked, btw).
That being said, an editor's judgement shouldn't stand alone. Other reviews can and should be given but the caveat with those reviews is that there's no telling who is giving them and how they're judging. Objectively, someone new to a product will be far more likely to flop on a review than someone who has intimate knowledge about the subject. As such, customer's reviews are far more suspect for me than the editor's review and a site where there is no editor's review or lack of priority for such a review would leave me wondering just what they're doing.
Overall, we're talking averages here anyways. If you buy something having read one review and/or given up after reading only one review then you bought your ticket and there's no sympathy for the ride you took. However, if you read all the reviews and averaged them--leveraging against the editor's op, etc. you should be on solid footing with your risk taking.