"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
sweetheart hotmail.com wrote:


I'm not quite sure how you expect them to do a feature on member's cars if
those members either don't have that particular car, or choose not to
report on it? Or am I missing something? Or are you saying they ignored
the data you sent to them when it was requested?

I am saying they dont ask. They choose who they ask which means the answers
they get are not representitive. I have never been asked. I have been asked
to register several times but never get selected to fill in the
questionnaires. So, yes, I feel I get ignored.


As regards reliability issues, you'll find examples of even the most
unreliable car which lives its life fault free. And with cars becoming
even more reliable, that percentage gets higher. What is more telling is
if a member would recommend their car to a friend.




I was signed in to take part in the survey. I kept my diary. I logged in
but the log in failed. I reported it. I was told a number of people
had similar problems. It was not fixed and by the time we are able to
access the log in the survey was closed. I wonder how many of the small
samples were locked out?

You're suggesting some form of conspiracy?

No I am suggesting the results are from small samples, unrepresentitve
samples and therefore the results are quite likely to be invalid and
unreliable.



But do you know the full facts? As regards 'green' issues I doubt anyone
does.

I am pretty sure they present a received agenda. I know facts they wont
present because its not in line with what they want to present.



FFS, it's a subscription only publication. Not the law of the land.

Exactly and it draws its samples and information from those subscribers who
are unlikely to be representitive and so the data is unlikely to be
representitive.