Has anyone got any recommendations as to a good place to look for
reviews and recommendations for general stuff like electrical
appliances, be it an electric drill / vacuum cleaner / TV / whatever?

All the ones I seem to come across look as if they are heavily
'sponsored' and highly untrustable...

Thanks
David

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:30:06 +0000, clot wrote:

Subscribe to Which? I do and have done so for more than 30 years.

Somehow, tests have to be paid for!

Trouble with Which? is

a) they typically don't test very much of what's around, sometimes only
one sample from dozens i a particular market sector

b) by the time their tests are published the market's moved on and
much of what they tested isn't available any more.

Generally they attempt to spoon-feed their readers with "this model is
good, that isn't" rather than educating them what to look for e.g.
"kryptonite wongles are generally more robust than plasticene ones"

Unless they've changed: this was my experience when I gave up on them a
few years ago.

--
John Stumbles

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

John Stumbles wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:30:06 +0000, clot wrote:

Subscribe to Which? I do and have done so for more than 30 years.

Somehow, tests have to be paid for!

Trouble with Which? is

a) they typically don't test very much of what's around, sometimes
only one sample from dozens i a particular market sector

b) by the time their tests are published the market's moved on and
much of what they tested isn't available any more.

Generally they attempt to spoon-feed their readers with "this model is
good, that isn't" rather than educating them what to look for e.g.
"kryptonite wongles are generally more robust than plasticene ones"

Unless they've changed: this was my experience when I gave up on them
a few years ago.

Sadly, I agree they have significantly dumbed down over the years.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, John Stumbles wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:30:06 +0000, clot wrote:

Subscribe to Which? I do and have done so for more than 30 years.

Somehow, tests have to be paid for!

Trouble with Which? is

a) they typically don't test very much of what's around, sometimes only
one sample from dozens i a particular market sector

b) by the time their tests are published the market's moved on and
much of what they tested isn't available any more.

Generally they attempt to spoon-feed their readers with "this model is
good, that isn't" rather than educating them what to look for e.g.
"kryptonite wongles are generally more robust than plasticene ones"

Unless they've changed: this was my experience when I gave up on them a
few years ago.

They haven't. They could not possibly educate the user as they don't
actually differentiate between kryptonite wongles and plasticene ones.
This is the main reason why it's only a matter of time until I cancel
my subscription, just short of my 10-year member anniversary.

Kostas

In article ,
"clot" writes:
John Stumbles wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:30:06 +0000, clot wrote:

Subscribe to Which? I do and have done so for more than 30 years.

Somehow, tests have to be paid for!

Trouble with Which? is

a) they typically don't test very much of what's around, sometimes
only one sample from dozens i a particular market sector

b) by the time their tests are published the market's moved on and
much of what they tested isn't available any more.

Generally they attempt to spoon-feed their readers with "this model is
good, that isn't" rather than educating them what to look for e.g.
"kryptonite wongles are generally more robust than plasticene ones"

Unless they've changed: this was my experience when I gave up on them
a few years ago.

Sadly, I agree they have significantly dumbed down over the years.

My parents have subscribed for decades, and I sometimes read
a copy when I visit. Whenever they review something I actually
know about, I find the reviews badly flawed, which makes me
very suspicious of all their reviews. The other parts of the
magazine are interesting, but as the reviews are the main
part, that doesn't leave a lot.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:12:40 +0000, clot wrote:

Sadly, I agree they have significantly dumbed down over the years.

They started dumbed down. There was a rival publication ("Shopper's Choice"
IIRC) which didn't do the blobs thing but tried to do proper educational
reviews. Which? won out.

Then there was VHS and Beta .... :-)


--
John Stumbles

The clairvoyants' meeting has been cancelled due to unforseen circumstances.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:


My parents have subscribed for decades, and I sometimes read
a copy when I visit. Whenever they review something I actually
know about, I find the reviews badly flawed, which makes me
very suspicious of all their reviews. The other parts of the
magazine are interesting, but as the reviews are the main
part, that doesn't leave a lot.


I've found the same thing. When I've read a review on a subject I know
well, and find major, misleading errors, I find it difficult to trust
them in areas I know little of. They weren't always this bad, though.
Years ago, I found them quite useful.
What really bothers me, is the times I've emailed them with corrections
on mis-statements (complete with references), and months later, the
'information' in question is still there, uncorrected.