Mortimer wrote:

<<So are they trained chefs? Does it matter?>>

Maybe not; it just gives me information to understand better the basis
for their decision. I suppose that I grant someone with formal
training more authority, but perhaps granting anyone "authority" would
be a mistake. I don't really know how thorough even the best culinary
training is. Do they really understand the science, or is it mainly
vocational training, like "Do X, it works?"

I too love Consumer Reports, but you're right, sometimes they rank
things by somewhat arbitrary standards, rendering the results only
marginally useful. Much more interesting to me than the results is
the data both magazines accumulate while arriving at their
destination. Discovering that baking soda makes things brown better
is interesting, more useful than their decision to use baking soda in
a particular recipe. That provides me with a tool to use later when I
want to make my own recipes, or to diagnose where one went wrong.

I'm a little suspicious, though, of some of their explanations of the
"why's". I keep thinking, "How do you know?" Sometimes their
explanations from one article to the next seem a bit contradictory,
but, to be fair, perhaps it's my own lack of knowledge that makes it
seem so.