Here's what would be awesome: a version matrix:
Originally Posted by the article
It's pretty common to get to a benchmark result that surprises me, and I want to go check what versions of gcc were involved. Since I haven't memorized the paragraph of version numbers, I have to basically read it all again. If it was in a table, I could scan down just the column of the table I wanted to check.
kernel | filesystem | gcc | x.org | glibc (if applicable) | ...
And I second the suggestion to not say anything about a graph if you don't have anything useful to add. "oh look Fedora won again" is useless. We have to read all the text you write to avoid missing any interesting observations or explanations of why one score is higher, and it just slows us down to read stuff that isn't useful. It especially slows me down when one of those casual comments seems to be wrong (i.e. my intuition as to the root cause of the result differs from yours, for example :P ); it makes me stop and consider replying in the article... But then I don't bother, because it's usually something relatively minor.
High-school science report padding is probably the best description I've seen of the style. Other benchmark sites do this too, writing like it's a play-by-play commentary on a race, with one video card making up for earlier defeats by doing well on this benchmark, and garbage like that.