Maaaaaaybe. It's really hard to get objective information about this stuff -- people naturally tend to evangelize the tools they already understand, and discredit the ones they don't -- which would make crowdsourcing this kind of info a real challenge. The inventor of tool Foo saying "Foo is good for this but not good for that" signifies much more to me than Random User of tool Foo saying the same thing.

Oddly enough, as I'm rereading through my own list I'm just now noticing how many of them really boil down to assessing the quality of the tech based on the humility of the tech's inventors: if they understand that their code isn't self-explanatory, and that good documentation is important, and that it isn't necessarily perfect for everything just because they invented it, then that implies a lot more care and deliberation in the code itself.