The academic peer review process basically curates the literature by filtering out the majority of submitted papers, which often are low quality, cover something already done, etc. So, it's somewhat a different beast. More importantly, though,
> Academic papers are definitely not good learning materials, unless one is already familiar with the subject area.
That's right, because a lot of the cutting-edge research is really hard stuff that takes years of study to really understand. The point isn't to educate, it's to advance the knowledge of a small group (other researchers) that specilizes in a narrow area. Hopefully, those people (or their students) will eventually distill that knowledge into something usable by others (e.g. software). The point _can't_ be to educate (in general), because the stuff is just too hard. That's just the way research is. (If it's good research.)
I don't think the OP's experiences are typical: He needed to publish blogs because his work had immediate impact. That is rare overall in academia, including in CS. Most of the good work that is done will _eventually_ end up in a product, but it will take time.
But it's worth noting that the OP _also_ publishes papers. Really don't think there is a tool problem there, though there is always room for improvement.