|
Thread Number: 11255
consumer reports? are they really reporting? |
[Down to Last] |  |
|
| Post# 202390 , Reply# 1 4/8/2007 at 22:21 (6,224 days old) by decodriveboy (FL, US) | ||
|
I think.... their ratings are of no consequence anymore. CR is just another branch of corporate advertising disguised as information. | ||
Post# 202416 , Reply# 2 4/8/2007 at 23:15 (6,224 days old) by toggleswitch  (New York City, NY) |
||
I use it as a point of reference and to stay current with so many newer financial and physical products. As far as the ratings go, you have a mind of your own, and it is there to be used. Similarly you may now know more than the writers of such articles. Just like your kindergarten teacher may not look so bright to you now, and you have moved beyond the need for her, she was probably pretty impresive to you when your mind was smaller/younger/emptier. :-) | ||
|
Post# 202444 , Reply# 3 4/9/2007 at 03:48 (6,224 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
I agree CR has become less specific in their written explanations about products, but it would appear their testing methods are still valid---with the notable exception of the recent outsourced child car seat debacle. I miss the more detail-oriented appliance evaluations of the past. I suppose someone convinced them (in error, in my opinion) most people aren't interested in the details, just the bullet-rating charts. Most products I purchase perform more or less as CR says they will. There are questions about reliability data, but as Toggle stated, you should use CR as a starting point when making purchasing decisions. You can opt to go to read people's opinions at this and other appliance-oriented forums, but be prepared for wildly conflicting reports. By way of example, for each person who thinks Whirlpool makes a good frontloading washer, someone else opines they're crap. You can also opt to heed the advice of the salesman at whatever store you plan to make your purchase. Many of us find them lacking in knowledge and ready to say anything---no matter how divorced from reality---to make a sale. CR may be an imperfect product itself, but I still go to their ratings first when making purchasing decisions. Millions of others never look at CR and make fine purchasing choices on their own. | ||
| Post# 202484 , Reply# 4 4/9/2007 at 08:40 (6,223 days old) by andrewinorlando () | ||
|
Toggles is absolutely right on his point that we do know more than most of their writers...I mean, look at us!! Most of us could do those jobs in our sleep, and do a far better, more thorough job. | ||
|
Post# 202522 , Reply# 5 4/9/2007 at 12:37 (6,223 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
I gave up on CR for a couple of reasons. Main one was that back in late 1997 they rated Amana as the top washer. I bought mine based on that rating plus a good deal at Sears; the huge stainless tub was mesmerizing with its possibilities compared to the tiny tub on the center dial Maytag it was replacing. As it turned out, in the 9 years I owned that Amana machine it went through 4 belts that were not very simple to replace. To be fair, even a new Maytag would have seemed cheap compared to a solid center dial machine, but bottom line is that this Amana was anything but problem-free. Then I wanted to look something up on line from a CR issue I no longer had in my posession. That's when I made the rude discovery that with CR it's an either/or situation. You either subscribe to the magazine or you subscribe to the on-line version, but a subscription to the magazine does not automatically get you access to the same thing on line. That's when I decided that CR was just too tight-ass of an organization and that their evaluations were flawed. They should never have rated the Amana washer #1 if they didn't have enough repair history on the machine. This sloppy reporting along with an additional charge to access the information on line that I was already paying to receive (it has to cost them vastly less to post their issues on line than publish and mail them) was enough to let me allow my subscription to lapse. So far I haven't missed them at all. | ||
|
Post# 202557 , Reply# 6 4/9/2007 at 16:36 (6,223 days old) by petek (Ontari ari ari O ) |
||
I agree with Frigilux and think their tests are still valid but I only buy it intermittently anymore because the articles are too brief then you just have the ratings chart. Plus there's too much "other" stuff they never used to have or very often like retirement funds, insurance policies, what's the best bank, and too much "health" stuff. I liked it only for appliance and car reporting not all that other gunk.
| ||
|
Post# 202576 , Reply# 8 4/9/2007 at 17:06 (6,223 days old) by petek (Ontari ari ari O ) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 202603 , Reply# 10 4/9/2007 at 19:21 (6,223 days old) by petek (Ontari ari ari O ) |
||
|
Maybe we're just looking at it thru aging eyes. When I was a kid, back in the 60's I use to love sitting there reading all their stuff on the latest receivers, Scott,Marantz,HK etc or the kitchen stuff, they did seem to go into more detail but then maybe they didn't and I'm just thinking they did? Unfortunatly I don't have any old issues.
| ||
| Post# 202609 , Reply# 11 4/9/2007 at 19:56 (6,223 days old) by bingwsguy (Binghamton NY) | ||
|
Toggleswitch Steve, you really said it very well. | ||
|
Post# 202645 , Reply# 12 4/9/2007 at 21:22 (6,223 days old) by pulsator (Saint Joseph, MI) |
||
My mom has an account for the website (I don't have a clue why,) anyway, I just use it for personal enjoyment. I've had experience with most of the machines they rate, and I think it's just funny how off they are on their ratings. If they explained why each rating was what it was, I might pay more attention, but they obviously don't have a clue!
| ||
| Post# 202791 , Reply# 14 4/10/2007 at 12:32 (6,222 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
No More CR For Me!
Compared with the CR I used to love and subscribe to, the new CR is "dumbed down" to the point that there IS no point anymore. There used to be some information about testing procedures, and there used to be material designed to increase awareness of useless features, environmental concerns (yes, even in the early '50s) and advertising drama. Today, the writing is about on a par with "Parade" Magazine, and the "cut-to-the-chase" Ratings are seldom informative enough for my taste. There seems to be little or no attention paid to durability any more; someone seems to think that having the latest "energy-saving" features overrides lasting quality- as if you should go out and cause the planet to be raped for some more iron ore and petrochemicals every two or three years just so you can have a machine that uses a bit less (and a bit colder) water than the one you already own. My rating is Not Acceptable. | ||
|
Post# 202810 , Reply# 15 4/10/2007 at 15:24 (6,222 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
|
It also seemed that CR used to be in love with certain manufacturers that did indeed turn out a high quality and durable product. They consistently ranked center dial Maytag washers at the top through most of the 70's, only once did Whirlpool beat out Maytag with top rated washer as I recall. Maytag wasn't as fortunate with their halo-from-hell dryers, however. They also consistently rated Sony TV's highest and had testimonials about people being able to get great reception with just rabbit ears. Those people must have lived across the street from the transmitter. I ended up buying a Sony TV for myself in 1977 based on all I had read in CR, and that was the first instance of CR's credibility eroding away for me. The contrast was so high on that set that any dark background was simply black with no definition. How they could rate that as good picture quality was beyond me but I did eventually get used to it. However the set did last forever, it became the household set when I had to move back home for a while and it was on almost all day every day until about midnight. It went with me when I moved out again and a few years ago started turning people pink with more and more frequency so I finally unloaded it after over 25 years of continuous service. CR got that part right, at least. It seems to me that unlike today's CR, the old CR used to give a lot more weight to durability and longevity than features and gadetry, as witnessed by their loyalty to the simple but indestructible center dials. When they rated my flimsy Amana shred-o-matic washer #1 I knew they had gotten their priorities skewed up and I agree with Sandy that durability and dependability seems to be entirely overlooked by them these days. Maybe it's unfair to blame CR for that, since durability and dependability are unfamiliar terms across the board in today's manufacturing world, it seems.
| ||
| Post# 202819 , Reply# 16 4/10/2007 at 16:35 (6,222 days old) by roto204 (Tucson, AZ) | ||
There is a difference
I was thumbing through some 1950s Consumer Reports over at Roger's the other day, and indeed, through some 1980s issues that I'd rescued. It's not your imagination; the articles have become much more concise, and the volumes of test setup and execution information that used to fill pages has been condensed to mere footnotes in the ratings section, if anything. Perhaps it's a change to compliment our supposedly instant-gratification generation, but a large portion of the interesting information (what we, probably, deem interesting) has been omitted. It could just be that they grew tired of reiterating the same thing. Or, perhaps, they think no one cares about the minutiae. Alternatively, maybe we wanted to know more back then about the aesthetics of driving a 1986 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight, or about the agitator design of a Magic Chef that made it so amazingly capable. Remember the ratings format in those days? Advantages, A,C,D,E,Q. Disadvantages: a,c,i,l,m. What was m? "Lint filter judged harder to clean than most." Read all about it underneath. Maybe people just want to know what to buy now, and that's it. To a geek like me, that seems kind of shallow. After all, half the fun was in understanding why you'd care about the ratings in the first place... | ||
|
Post# 202824 , Reply# 17 4/10/2007 at 16:56 (6,222 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
|
Nate, I think you have captured the reason behind why so many of us find CR just a bunch of superfluous blather anymore. They've sold out to the instant-gratification bunch, those same people who generally want to replace their pefectly good washer, mixer, TV, stereo, or car before they've even had a chance to fail. A very misguided adaptive move on CR's part, that is for sure.
| ||
|
Post# 203325 , Reply# 19 4/12/2007 at 06:55 (6,220 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY) |
||
|
This is what sums it up for me.... | ||
|
Post# 203349 , Reply# 20 4/12/2007 at 09:53 (6,220 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
Ah, Steve
You should try our Öko-test here in Germany. They search for equally absurd reasons to downgrade items which they are testing. I remember them once taking two whole points (from five possible) from a portable radio because it could "also" be powered by non-rechargeable batteries if the consumer so desired...
| ||
|
Post# 203374 , Reply# 21 4/12/2007 at 12:07 (6,220 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 203466 , Reply# 22 4/12/2007 at 18:40 (6,220 days old) by bajaespuma (Connecticut) |
||
I remember the 1969 issue of Consumers Reports (the first one I ever saw, BTW) criticizing the Maytag A606 (which it rated as #1, anyway) because its "backsplash trim judged difficult to clean". I concluded at this point that their testers didn't get out much. I also concluded that they were paid off by the Maytag company; all the criteria for what made a washing machine excellent that year were intrinsic to the Maytags. I will say that I agree that I found CU much more useful and more entertaining when it published substantial WRITTEN reports on tested items rather than those idiot graphs it uses now. I think it's still a good starting point for people who are about to go buy a big-ticket item with no knowledge of either brands or the item itself. This was the case with me when I started to shop for a large flat panel tv without knowing the difference between a plasma and an lcd monitor. Now I know. | ||
| Post# 203474 , Reply# 23 4/12/2007 at 19:23 (6,220 days old) by stainfighter (Columbia, SC) | ||
let's also not forget...CR 'errors' in auto test
slightly OT but in 1978 they had a splash cover about the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon which they stated they should be taken off market due to unsafe handling almost like the Corvair, "Unsafe At Any Speed" type of thing. The cars themselves were not techno marvels nor legendary in reliability. But they soon lost me as a subscriber b/c later on it was revealed the test involved having their driver take the wheel and turn it a full-half turn then take their hands off the wheel - at 45 MPH. Imagine that! The vehicle begins to spin horribly and is nearly out of control!?! Whoda' thunk' it??? Would a reasonable driver do that, no... but CR would!!! RIP... | ||
| Post# 203557 , Reply# 24 4/13/2007 at 00:31 (6,220 days old) by maytagbear (N.E. Ohio) | ||
|
Center dial Maytags were rated highly, not because they were superior in every way, but more because they were deficient in no serious way. And I agree. I had an A208, and the backsplash was difficult to clean. Lawrence/Maytagbear | ||
|
Post# 203944 , Reply# 25 4/14/2007 at 18:07 (6,218 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
Cancelled my CR subscription years ago, now rely on a neighbor who forwards their's instead of chucking it into the recycling. Today's issues are a poor showing compared to CR even as recently as the 1980's or 1990's. Writing copy is horrible, testing methods/reports are boring and somewhat non-informative. What also bothers one is that it seems only the most basic testing information is covered in print. To receive the full reports one has to use CR's online service. Well after paying for a subscription, why should one have to go online to read anything? L. | ||
|
Post# 203957 , Reply# 26 4/14/2007 at 18:55 (6,218 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA) |
||
Laundress you are right about the writing of Consumer Reports, it's good that you let your neighbor buy it. Sometimes for items like ranges and refrigerators they don't even have the full Ratings, just 4-5 "quick picks". In the latest issue, the article that explains what happened to the car seat tests they got into trouble for is written in the third person - as if it is not in the same magazine. Then take a look at the expression on Jim Guest's face - not someone I want to run into on a dark alley!
| ||
|
Post# 203960 , Reply# 27 4/14/2007 at 18:57 (6,218 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 205266 , Reply# 29 4/19/2007 at 21:23 (6,213 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 205271 , Reply# 30 4/19/2007 at 22:20 (6,213 days old) by petek (Ontari ari ari O ) |
||
|
| ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
