Smarty wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...


I am curious. What exactly is your relationship with Consumer
Reports?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



John,

I received a 1 year subscription to Consumers Reports as a wedding
gift in the late 1960s when I got married. Ever since then, I have
renewed the subscription, and used their reviews to assist me in
making shopping decisions. I have purchased many major items over
nearly 40 years with their input, and in many if not most cases,
found their comparisons and data to be accurate and generally valid.
In cases where I have been disappointed, I can often find a good
reason which really explains why their choice and my experience
differ, typically my false assumption that they will compare
products
using much the same discriminants which I would.

When I retrospectively look back upon items I have purchased for
which they collect and report reliability, my experiences are very
much correlated with their data. Obvious examples would be extreme
satisfaction with my current car's repair history, which matches
their data to an uncanny extent, as well as dissatisfaction with the
repair history of a few home appliances which they now report in the
lower ranking repair data.

My only other connection was a single opportunity to perform certain
testing which fell under a non-disclosure agreement whose duration I
cannot accurately recall as a hired consulting engineering company
employee in the early 1990s. They impressed me tremendously with
their very thorough, very well informed, and very meticulous
approach
to the specific testing which required lab facilities which they
lacked and my employer possessed.

You asked a full disclosure and this is about all I can offer. There
are, and have been, specialized test facilities and labs whose
opinions and evaluations I would value as superior to CU. For many
years as an avid (rabid?) audiophile, I would not especially trust
my
selection of audio gear to CU when better evaluations were being
offered in the audiophile magazines and from some distinguished
engineers whose opinions I valued. To this day, I would put more
stock and value in reading lens evaluations and camera evaluations
from others on the Internet and elsewhere rather than depend on CU.
I
do sincerely believe, however, that they act with integrity, very
good technical judgment, impartiality, and mostly correct metrics.

Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the
Consumer
Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't elaborate
except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for a testing
organization.

I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I
was right.

plonk

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)