The fact is that everyone is encouraged to move away from reiserfs because it lacks a true maintainer as far as I know.
For those that didn't trust reiserfs, I will say this, Jeff M. did a good job of making patches for SuSE/SUSE... and so it was really the only platform for reiserfs IMHO, but given it was the only enteprise distro with journaled filesystem and lvm for such a long time, etc., etc. The SUSE folks made reiserfs work and work even better by adding extended attributes and the like... good job. But alas, that support ended some time ago.
Reiserfs is much more of a complex data structure written to disk and therefore bad sectors did tend to make things quite bad. But one could argue that a bad sector in the right place on ext3/4 does equally as bad things (could even be worse), it's just easier to hit a bad place with reiserfs. As long as the disks were good and you didn't cut power, reiserfs has been very stable. But again, on an distro (like Red Hat, for example) where there is disdain for the filesystem, sure... stay as far away from their implementation as possible (unpatched, uncared for, etc...).
I've certainly seen my share of weird anomalies with ext2/3/4.... and at least with reiserfs, I could to a rebuildtree and usually get everything back... can't say the same for the others. But in all fairness to compare ext2/3/4 to reiserfs is very much apples to oranges. While a few nice features like extents made it in... those filesystems still show their ancient (and I mean that in a fuddy duddy way) roots.
So... love reiserfs, hate reiserfs, the fact is, without good maintenance, it has to die... that's just the way it is. Sure, the kernel devs can keep it limping along, but eventually, it's going to rot.
Who knows, maybe Reiser4 will be the "answer"?