Just thought this was worth repeating, as it succinctly covers a very frequent topic.
The decision-on-spec-list thing seems to be particularly common. It's not like you're buying some meaningless piece of disposable consumer electronics (well, at least not in most cases); much of the enjoyment of a watch comes from the intangibles. I'm keen on photography, and this type of thing seems to come up frequently on the very few times I'm on a camera forum (I stay the hell away from them except to find older lenses). Mind you, cameras essentially are disposable consumer electronics now, but it's still the intangibles that separate a great one from an impressive-on-paper dud.
Ergonomics, reliability, availability of parts, and feel of operation are hugely important, but there's no meaningful way express these factors on a spec list. Add a bunch of opinionated gear nerds ("equipment measurebators", as Ken Rockwell has so aptly put it), who spend far more time defending their pet camera system online than actually taking photos — therefore dominating the search results — and you can't blame people who are new to the hobby for focusing on the wrong areas.
There was a great piece of satire that sums up this state of affairs recently:
Anyway, don't buy watches on based on their paper specifications is what I'm saying.
Both my favourite camera and my favourite watch both have terrible specs, by the way: