I found little to quibble with, except this:

"Bill Ranck" > wrote in message >...
> > As the article also shows, the subjective ratings may be useless.
>
> The article you pointed to doesn't really "show" anything. It makes
> some opinionated statements that you agree with.
> I agree with some
> of it too. But, to *show* that CR info is useless would require some
> statistical evidence from a reasonably good source,

The statments re who does the reviewing, where they're located, what
sort of driving they do, etc, are not opinions. They're a reporting
of conditions.
Statistics aren't the only way of proving or disproving something.
Highlighting the review methodology (which the article I cited does)
can show faulty methodology.

Greg Zywicki

I found little to quibble with, except this:

"Bill Ranck" > wrote in message >...
> > As the article also shows, the subjective ratings may be useless.
>
> The article you pointed to doesn't really "show" anything. It makes
> some opinionated statements that you agree with.
> I agree with some
> of it too. But, to *show* that CR info is useless would require some
> statistical evidence from a reasonably good source,

The statments re who does the reviewing, where they're located, what
sort of driving they do, etc, are not opinions. They're a reporting
of conditions.
Statistics aren't the only way of proving or disproving something.
Highlighting the review methodology (which the article I cited does)
can show faulty methodology.

Greg Zywicki

Nancy Young wrote:

[...]

> I value that. I don't know how most people just know stuff, but I
> have to read it somewhere, and I really don't feel like buying the
> latest issue of CD Players Today.


_CR_ is good for researching the features you want in a product,especially
if you are relatively ignorant about the kind of product you are considering
purchasing...if I were going to purchase a power saw or a dryer or whatever
I'd check them out first to get a general overview of what was out there...

I once on their recommendation bought their top - and - check - rated for
value VCR (a JVC). The thing crapped out on me exactly six months and six
days after I bought it (it had IIRC a six month warranty). But that may
have just been a fluke <shrug/>

If you really want to research a specific model of a product there all kinds
of groups, boards, listservs, etc. to go to for advice (if you have the
time, that is)...

--
Best
Greg

Nancy Young wrote:

[...]

> I value that. I don't know how most people just know stuff, but I
> have to read it somewhere, and I really don't feel like buying the
> latest issue of CD Players Today.


_CR_ is good for researching the features you want in a product,especially
if you are relatively ignorant about the kind of product you are considering
purchasing...if I were going to purchase a power saw or a dryer or whatever
I'd check them out first to get a general overview of what was out there...

I once on their recommendation bought their top - and - check - rated for
value VCR (a JVC). The thing crapped out on me exactly six months and six
days after I bought it (it had IIRC a six month warranty). But that may
have just been a fluke <shrug/>

If you really want to research a specific model of a product there all kinds
of groups, boards, listservs, etc. to go to for advice (if you have the
time, that is)...

--
Best
Greg

In rec.food.cooking, Nancy Young > wrote:

> I'm coming into this late, but I did want to say, CR has told me a
> number of times what to look for in such and such product. Perfect
> example, when I wanted to buy a CD player as a present years ago,

Yeah - they tend to do that. For that, they are valuable.

But for the very most important stuff, like how it sounds, they are
useless.

For CD players, they will tell you they all sound alike. For coffee
makers, they will tell you they all make good coffee. Neither statement
is tue.

Read an article about a product which you are an expert on. Reel with
shock and dismay about the irrelevant criteria used by CR. Then query
why you ever trusted them on anything.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

In rec.food.cooking, Nancy Young > wrote:

> I'm coming into this late, but I did want to say, CR has told me a
> number of times what to look for in such and such product. Perfect
> example, when I wanted to buy a CD player as a present years ago,

Yeah - they tend to do that. For that, they are valuable.

But for the very most important stuff, like how it sounds, they are
useless.

For CD players, they will tell you they all sound alike. For coffee
makers, they will tell you they all make good coffee. Neither statement
is tue.

Read an article about a product which you are an expert on. Reel with
shock and dismay about the irrelevant criteria used by CR. Then query
why you ever trusted them on anything.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

In rec.food.cooking, Gregory Morrow > wrote:

> _CR_ is good for researching the features you want in a product,especially
> if you are relatively ignorant about the kind of product you are considering
> purchasing...if I were going to purchase a power saw or a dryer or whatever
> I'd check them out first to get a general overview of what was out there...

> I once on their recommendation bought their top - and - check - rated for
> value VCR (a JVC). The thing crapped out on me exactly six months and six
> days after I bought it (it had IIRC a six month warranty). But that may
> have just been a fluke <shrug/>

Coould have been a fluke, but for most products, they equate "lots of
bells and whistles and a low price" with "best buy".

Overall quality is foreign to them in most product categories.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

In rec.food.cooking, Dan Abel > wrote:

> I was reading their review of kitchen stoves, and they
> mentioned that the high end stoves they tested were actually less
> convenient to use and clean than mid-level stoves.

And I bet that they mentioned that all stoves cook pretty much the same.
But most folks here know better. Maximum BTU output? Precise regulation
of a low flame? Did they rate stoves on that?

I trust CR for low-level reports on non-technical stuff that I know
nothing about and care little about. But for expensive, technical stuff,
like, say, a digital camera or a computer monitor, I wouldn't even bother
to look.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

In rec.food.cooking, Dan Abel > wrote:

> I was reading their review of kitchen stoves, and they
> mentioned that the high end stoves they tested were actually less
> convenient to use and clean than mid-level stoves.

And I bet that they mentioned that all stoves cook pretty much the same.
But most folks here know better. Maximum BTU output? Precise regulation
of a low flame? Did they rate stoves on that?

I trust CR for low-level reports on non-technical stuff that I know
nothing about and care little about. But for expensive, technical stuff,
like, say, a digital camera or a computer monitor, I wouldn't even bother
to look.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

wrote in
:

> In rec.food.cooking, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> I was reading their review of kitchen stoves, and they
>> mentioned that the high end stoves they tested were actually less
>> convenient to use and clean than mid-level stoves.
>
> And I bet that they mentioned that all stoves cook pretty much the
> same. But most folks here know better. Maximum BTU output? Precise
> regulation of a low flame? Did they rate stoves on that?
>
> I trust CR for low-level reports on non-technical stuff that I know
> nothing about and care little about. But for expensive, technical
> stuff, like, say, a digital camera or a computer monitor, I wouldn't
> even bother to look.
>

They are, after all, "Consumers" Reports, and I think they have very few
truly expert staff who do the reviewing. Most of their reviewing is at
"consumer" level.

--
Wayne in Phoenix

unmunge as w-e-b

*If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.
*A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

In rec.food.cooking, Greg Zywicki > wrote:

> Has it occurred to anyone that the only evidence of quality we have on
> decades old products are the ones that lasted that long? Maybe
> products were made better, or maybe natural selection has weeded out
> all the bad models.

Excellent point. Look at classic cars, for example. You'd think that
all of them were as cool as Duesenbergs and Hudsons, unless you consider
that all of the Pintos are long since crushed and melted.

Old houses too - big, fine Queen Anne victorians are unlikely to be
typical of their era - the shacks that the common folks lived in are long
gone.

But in the meantime, I make coffee every day in a 1938 Silex, and toast
my bread in a Sunbeam T9 from the 40's. My Mom has a wonderful waffle
maker she got at a garage sale for a couple of bucks, which is obviously
MUCH better than the typical ones sold im Mall*Wart these days.

So despite the erroneous conclusion that all old stuff is better than all
new stuff, if you like good, cheap and funky, eBay and garage sales are
your best bet for appliances.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

wrote:
>
> In rec.food.cooking, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
> > I'm coming into this late, but I did want to say, CR has told me a
> > number of times what to look for in such and such product. Perfect
> > example, when I wanted to buy a CD player as a present years ago,
>
> Yeah - they tend to do that. For that, they are valuable.

> Read an article about a product which you are an expert on. Reel with
> shock and dismay about the irrelevant criteria used by CR. Then query
> why you ever trusted them on anything.

Well, I don't just go to the ratings and choose their top rated
model. I read what they have to say, and as I already said, what
to look for, then I choose for myself.

Yes, one time they rated soaps, then they pointed out the price per
use of Clinique against that cheap Bouquet soap from the supermarket.
Hello, I am not washing my face with that harsh cheap soap. I
thought that was a really stupid comparison. What's next, look how
much you can save riding a bicycle rather than a Jaguar? No kidding.

nancy

wrote:
>
> In rec.food.cooking, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
> > I'm coming into this late, but I did want to say, CR has told me a
> > number of times what to look for in such and such product. Perfect
> > example, when I wanted to buy a CD player as a present years ago,
>
> Yeah - they tend to do that. For that, they are valuable.

> Read an article about a product which you are an expert on. Reel with
> shock and dismay about the irrelevant criteria used by CR. Then query
> why you ever trusted them on anything.

Well, I don't just go to the ratings and choose their top rated
model. I read what they have to say, and as I already said, what
to look for, then I choose for myself.

Yes, one time they rated soaps, then they pointed out the price per
use of Clinique against that cheap Bouquet soap from the supermarket.
Hello, I am not washing my face with that harsh cheap soap. I
thought that was a really stupid comparison. What's next, look how
much you can save riding a bicycle rather than a Jaguar? No kidding.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
in reference to Consumer Reports:
>
> Well, I don't just go to the ratings and choose their top rated
> model. I read what they have to say, and as I already said, what
> to look for, then I choose for myself.
>
> Yes, one time they rated soaps, then they pointed out the price per
> use of Clinique against that cheap Bouquet soap from the supermarket.
> Hello, I am not washing my face with that harsh cheap soap. I
> thought that was a really stupid comparison. What's next, look how
> much you can save riding a bicycle rather than a Jaguar? No kidding.

This is exactly the reason I dropped my subscription about 25 years ago.
They will choose some off-the-wall criteria for no apparent reason to
downrate
some otherwise middle of the pack item, or completely ignore some basic
level of quality measure in order to uprate some cheap item.

I do not trust their reviews and ratings in their magazine articles. They
clearly have some agendas, and sometimes it's hard to see when they
are letting those agendas lead them astray. But if you read carefully and
make your own interpretations they can provide some useful information.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
in reference to Consumer Reports:
>
> Well, I don't just go to the ratings and choose their top rated
> model. I read what they have to say, and as I already said, what
> to look for, then I choose for myself.
>
> Yes, one time they rated soaps, then they pointed out the price per
> use of Clinique against that cheap Bouquet soap from the supermarket.
> Hello, I am not washing my face with that harsh cheap soap. I
> thought that was a really stupid comparison. What's next, look how
> much you can save riding a bicycle rather than a Jaguar? No kidding.

This is exactly the reason I dropped my subscription about 25 years ago.
They will choose some off-the-wall criteria for no apparent reason to
downrate
some otherwise middle of the pack item, or completely ignore some basic
level of quality measure in order to uprate some cheap item.

I do not trust their reviews and ratings in their magazine articles. They
clearly have some agendas, and sometimes it's hard to see when they
are letting those agendas lead them astray. But if you read carefully and
make your own interpretations they can provide some useful information.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

In article >, wrote:

> In rec.food.cooking, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > I was reading their review of kitchen stoves, and they
> > mentioned that the high end stoves they tested were actually less
> > convenient to use and clean than mid-level stoves.
>
> And I bet that they mentioned that all stoves cook pretty much the same.


I've been using stoves for over 40 years, and they all cook pretty much
the same. They apply heat to the food.


> But most folks here know better. Maximum BTU output? Precise regulation
> of a low flame? Did they rate stoves on that?


Yes. They made the comment that most newer gas stoves are a lot better
about low flames than they used to be. I found this very true. With my
old stove, turning the knob all the way meant that the flame went out.
With the knob set to "low", there was way too much heat for a simmer. By
bending over and looking at the flame while I turned the knob some
incredibly small amount, I could get a fairly low flame. With my new
stove, when I turned it all the way I thought that the flame went out, but
it wasn't, it was just too low to see.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

In article >, wrote:

> In rec.food.cooking, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > I was reading their review of kitchen stoves, and they
> > mentioned that the high end stoves they tested were actually less
> > convenient to use and clean than mid-level stoves.
>
> And I bet that they mentioned that all stoves cook pretty much the same.


I've been using stoves for over 40 years, and they all cook pretty much
the same. They apply heat to the food.


> But most folks here know better. Maximum BTU output? Precise regulation
> of a low flame? Did they rate stoves on that?


Yes. They made the comment that most newer gas stoves are a lot better
about low flames than they used to be. I found this very true. With my
old stove, turning the knob all the way meant that the flame went out.
With the knob set to "low", there was way too much heat for a simmer. By
bending over and looking at the flame while I turned the knob some
incredibly small amount, I could get a fairly low flame. With my new
stove, when I turned it all the way I thought that the flame went out, but
it wasn't, it was just too low to see.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

In article >,
wrote:

> I trust CR for low-level reports on non-technical stuff that I know
> nothing about and care little about. But for expensive, technical stuff,
> like, say, a digital camera or a computer monitor, I wouldn't even bother
> to look.

Sometime in the early 90's, I read a report they did on computers that
was full of factual errors--to the point where they misdefined basic
terms.

I sent them a rather detailed letter in and, to my surprise, they sent a
2-3 page (I forget just how long) personal response. Unfortunately, they
never actually addressed the substantive issues in my letter.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

In article >,
wrote:

> I trust CR for low-level reports on non-technical stuff that I know
> nothing about and care little about. But for expensive, technical stuff,
> like, say, a digital camera or a computer monitor, I wouldn't even bother
> to look.

Sometime in the early 90's, I read a report they did on computers that
was full of factual errors--to the point where they misdefined basic
terms.

I sent them a rather detailed letter in and, to my surprise, they sent a
2-3 page (I forget just how long) personal response. Unfortunately, they
never actually addressed the substantive issues in my letter.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

In rec.food.cooking, Scott > wrote:
> Sometime in the early 90's, I read a report they did on computers that
> was full of factual errors--to the point where they misdefined basic
> terms.

> I sent them a rather detailed letter in and, to my surprise, they sent a
> 2-3 page (I forget just how long) personal response. Unfortunately, they
> never actually addressed the substantive issues in my letter.

Just for yucks, I took a look at the 2004 Buying Guide, and flipped to
the section on BBQ Grills. CR has confirmed my impression with this
whopper: "Most gas or electric grills do a good job at grilling hotly and
evenly". IOW, only the price/feature ratio determines what to buy.

They know little or nothing about performance of the basic function of
the products they review. Either that, or they cannot reliably detect the
differences.

Here's some mo

[Stereo speakers] "Most models we've tested have been capable of
reasonable accuracy".

[TV Sets] "Most models we've tested do at least a good job"

[Film Cameras] "...nearly all can produce very pleasing snapshots..."

I could go on. But the point is that they gloss over the differences
concerning the basic function, and dwell on superfluous factors.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

In rec.food.cooking, Scott > wrote:
> Sometime in the early 90's, I read a report they did on computers that
> was full of factual errors--to the point where they misdefined basic
> terms.

> I sent them a rather detailed letter in and, to my surprise, they sent a
> 2-3 page (I forget just how long) personal response. Unfortunately, they
> never actually addressed the substantive issues in my letter.

Just for yucks, I took a look at the 2004 Buying Guide, and flipped to
the section on BBQ Grills. CR has confirmed my impression with this
whopper: "Most gas or electric grills do a good job at grilling hotly and
evenly". IOW, only the price/feature ratio determines what to buy.

They know little or nothing about performance of the basic function of
the products they review. Either that, or they cannot reliably detect the
differences.

Here's some mo

[Stereo speakers] "Most models we've tested have been capable of
reasonable accuracy".

[TV Sets] "Most models we've tested do at least a good job"

[Film Cameras] "...nearly all can produce very pleasing snapshots..."

I could go on. But the point is that they gloss over the differences
concerning the basic function, and dwell on superfluous factors.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:35:18 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>In rec.food.cooking, Scott > wrote:
>> Sometime in the early 90's, I read a report they did on computers that
>> was full of factual errors--to the point where they misdefined basic
>> terms.
>
>> I sent them a rather detailed letter in and, to my surprise, they sent a
>> 2-3 page (I forget just how long) personal response. Unfortunately, they
>> never actually addressed the substantive issues in my letter.
>
>Just for yucks, I took a look at the 2004 Buying Guide, and flipped to
>the section on BBQ Grills. CR has confirmed my impression with this
>whopper: "Most gas or electric grills do a good job at grilling hotly and
>evenly". IOW, only the price/feature ratio determines what to buy.
>
>They know little or nothing about performance of the basic function of
>the products they review. Either that, or they cannot reliably detect the
>differences.
>
>Here's some mo
>
>[Stereo speakers] "Most models we've tested have been capable of
>reasonable accuracy".
>
>[TV Sets] "Most models we've tested do at least a good job"
>
>[Film Cameras] "...nearly all can produce very pleasing snapshots..."
>
>I could go on. But the point is that they gloss over the differences
>concerning the basic function, and dwell on superfluous factors.

these claims don't seem to be outlandish to me, directed at your
typical mass consumer. but if you are particular (or have the money
to spend) you likely know of another source of info more suited to
you.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:35:18 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>In rec.food.cooking, Scott > wrote:
>> Sometime in the early 90's, I read a report they did on computers that
>> was full of factual errors--to the point where they misdefined basic
>> terms.
>
>> I sent them a rather detailed letter in and, to my surprise, they sent a
>> 2-3 page (I forget just how long) personal response. Unfortunately, they
>> never actually addressed the substantive issues in my letter.
>
>Just for yucks, I took a look at the 2004 Buying Guide, and flipped to
>the section on BBQ Grills. CR has confirmed my impression with this
>whopper: "Most gas or electric grills do a good job at grilling hotly and
>evenly". IOW, only the price/feature ratio determines what to buy.
>
>They know little or nothing about performance of the basic function of
>the products they review. Either that, or they cannot reliably detect the
>differences.
>
>Here's some mo
>
>[Stereo speakers] "Most models we've tested have been capable of
>reasonable accuracy".
>
>[TV Sets] "Most models we've tested do at least a good job"
>
>[Film Cameras] "...nearly all can produce very pleasing snapshots..."
>
>I could go on. But the point is that they gloss over the differences
>concerning the basic function, and dwell on superfluous factors.

these claims don't seem to be outlandish to me, directed at your
typical mass consumer. but if you are particular (or have the money
to spend) you likely know of another source of info more suited to
you.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
wrote:

> They know little or nothing about performance of the basic function of
> the products they review. Either that, or they cannot reliably detect the
> differences.

Back around 1980 or so, Bose Corp sued CU for product disparagement; the
CR review said that music played through the Bose speakers sounded like
it was "wander[ing] about the room," a defect.

When the reviewer testified, he made a sketch of the movement he claimed
to have heard, which actually depicted a movement of sound back and
forth along the wall between the two speakers--i.e., showing a
desirable stereo effect. A lower court found that CR acted with "actual
malice" in how they described the effect.

But the Supreme Court concluded that though the review's author gave an
obviously false description of the sound movement, Bose didn't show that
there was consciousness of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth,
and so found for CR.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

In article >,
wrote:

> They know little or nothing about performance of the basic function of
> the products they review. Either that, or they cannot reliably detect the
> differences.

Back around 1980 or so, Bose Corp sued CU for product disparagement; the
CR review said that music played through the Bose speakers sounded like
it was "wander[ing] about the room," a defect.

When the reviewer testified, he made a sketch of the movement he claimed
to have heard, which actually depicted a movement of sound back and
forth along the wall between the two speakers--i.e., showing a
desirable stereo effect. A lower court found that CR acted with "actual
malice" in how they described the effect.

But the Supreme Court concluded that though the review's author gave an
obviously false description of the sound movement, Bose didn't show that
there was consciousness of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth,
and so found for CR.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only