Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about gas
grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B for
years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't think
they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to heat
output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as cast
iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from the
grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
many of us can afford that!

Ed

Theron wrote:
>
> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about gas
> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B for
> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't think
> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to heat
> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as cast
> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from the
> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
> many of us can afford that!
>
> Ed

And this should surprise anyone coming from the company that was shown
to have rigged tests to get the results they wanted? (and no, I'm not
confusing them with NBCs rigged demo).

In article >,
"Theron" > wrote:

> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about gas
> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B for
> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't think
> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to heat
> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as cast
> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from the
> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
> many of us can afford that!
>
> Ed

Ed,

I suggest you send a letter to CR to voice your concerns.

On Jun 24, 6:30�pm, "Theron" > wrote:
> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about gas
> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a �Weber Silver Genes B for
> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't think
> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to heat
> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as cast
> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from the
> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
> many of us can afford that!
>
> Ed

I quit reading Consumer Reports because it got to a point where I
completely disagreed with a lot of their ratings. I think they were
using the same testers with the same preconceived ideas as to what's
good and what's bad over and over again. I prefer to read user
reviews on sites like Amazon or Epinions. Yes, there are the ones
that say, "This is crap", but there are also some well written reviews
that explain exactly why the reviewer liked or didn't like something
and what features need to be added or removed from the item. I think
you get a more honest assessement from someone using the product in
the real world rather than from someone wearing a white coat working
in a lab.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
ster.com...
>
> Theron wrote:
>>
>> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about
>> gas
>> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
>> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B
>> for
>> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
>> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
>> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
>> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't
>> think
>> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to
>> heat
>> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as
>> cast
>> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from
>> the
>> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
>> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
>> many of us can afford that!
>>
>> Ed
>
> And this should surprise anyone coming from the company that was shown
> to have rigged tests to get the results they wanted? (and no, I'm not
> confusing them with NBCs rigged demo).

I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I just think they
don't, or didn't in this case have the expertise to accurately rate the
product. Look at the article, and look at the salmon steak in the picture.
It, to me, doesn't look like it was on a grill.

Ed

"Theron" > wrote in message

>
> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I just think they
> don't, or didn't in this case have the expertise to accurately rate the
> product.

Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they called defects were
good features to me.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Theron" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I just think
>> they don't, or didn't in this case have the expertise to accurately
>> rate the product.
>
> Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they called defects
> were good features to me.

All I really want is for them to list the characteristics and explain them
so I can decide for myself. For instance, the first time I bought a CD
player ... I had no clue what that 4X meant and why you'd spend more
for it, whatever. Or paint, I learned about blocking. I'm not so much
worried about the ratings.

nancy

Theron wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ster.com...
> >
> > Theron wrote:
> >>
> >> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about
> >> gas
> >> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
> >> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B
> >> for
> >> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
> >> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
> >> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
> >> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't
> >> think
> >> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to
> >> heat
> >> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as
> >> cast
> >> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from
> >> the
> >> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
> >> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
> >> many of us can afford that!
> >>
> >> Ed
> >
> > And this should surprise anyone coming from the company that was shown
> > to have rigged tests to get the results they wanted? (and no, I'm not
> > confusing them with NBCs rigged demo).
>
> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest.

I *know* they do. It was well publicized and they only avoided getting
convicted of it through wrangling in the bogus legal system.

Nancy Young wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Theron" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I just think
>>> they don't, or didn't in this case have the expertise to accurately
>>> rate the product.
>>
>> Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they called defects
>> were good features to me.
>
> All I really want is for them to list the characteristics and explain them
> so I can decide for myself. For instance, the first time I bought a CD
> player ... I had no clue what that 4X meant and why you'd spend more
> for it, whatever. Or paint, I learned about blocking. I'm not so much
> worried about the ratings.
> nancy

Unfortunately the masses just want to be told what to do. Thats the main
reason why marketing works so well.

It is getting so ridiculous that it is often impossible to find complete
information and specifications on stuff.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:30:47 -0700, Theron wrote:

> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about gas
> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B for
> years ...

Gee - Just like Kent Hagen used. For not being Kent, you two sure
have an awful lot in common.

Hugs and Kisses, Kent.

-sw

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:01:47 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> Theron wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ster.com...
>>>
>>> Theron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about
>>>> gas
>>>> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
>>>> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B
>>>> for
>>>> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
>>>> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
>>>> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
>>>> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't
>>>> think
>>>> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to
>>>> heat
>>>> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as
>>>> cast
>>>> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from
>>>> the
>>>> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
>>>> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
>>>> many of us can afford that!
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>> And this should surprise anyone coming from the company that was shown
>>> to have rigged tests to get the results they wanted? (and no, I'm not
>>> confusing them with NBCs rigged demo).
>>
>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest.
>
> I *know* they do. It was well publicized and they only avoided getting
> convicted of it through wrangling in the bogus legal system.

i see only one instance in s a brief run through google, where suzuki
alleged rigged test when their s.u.v. got a bad rating. is there more?

and it reached the supreme court in the 'bogus legal system,' which
declined to hear the case. it seems to me suzuki had their day in court
and failed to make their case.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:07:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Jun 24, 6:30�pm, "Theron" > wrote:
>> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about gas
>> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
>> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a �Weber Silver Genes B for
>> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
>> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
>> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
>> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't think
>> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to heat
>> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as cast
>> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from the
>> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
>> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
>> many of us can afford that!
>>
>> Ed
>
> I quit reading Consumer Reports because it got to a point where I
> completely disagreed with a lot of their ratings. I think they were
> using the same testers with the same preconceived ideas as to what's
> good and what's bad over and over again. I prefer to read user
> reviews on sites like Amazon or Epinions. Yes, there are the ones
> that say, "This is crap", but there are also some well written reviews
> that explain exactly why the reviewer liked or didn't like something
> and what features need to be added or removed from the item. I think
> you get a more honest assessement from someone using the product in
> the real world rather than from someone wearing a white coat working
> in a lab.

but what you don't typically get at amazon or epinions is how a product
compares with similar products from different makers.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:01:47 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Theron wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> ster.com...
> >>>
> >>> Theron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about
> >>>> gas
> >>>> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
> >>>> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B
> >>>> for
> >>>> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
> >>>> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
> >>>> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
> >>>> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't
> >>>> think
> >>>> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to
> >>>> heat
> >>>> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as
> >>>> cast
> >>>> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from
> >>>> the
> >>>> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
> >>>> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
> >>>> many of us can afford that!
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>>
> >>> And this should surprise anyone coming from the company that was shown
> >>> to have rigged tests to get the results they wanted? (and no, I'm not
> >>> confusing them with NBCs rigged demo).
> >>
> >> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest.
> >
> > I *know* they do. It was well publicized and they only avoided getting
> > convicted of it through wrangling in the bogus legal system.
>
> i see only one instance in s a brief run through google, where suzuki
> alleged rigged test when their s.u.v. got a bad rating. is there more?
>
> and it reached the supreme court in the 'bogus legal system,' which
> declined to hear the case. it seems to me suzuki had their day in court
> and failed to make their case.
>
> your pal,
> blake

That was certainly the most blatant case, however if you take the time
to look over a few issues of the CR babble at a library, it will be
quite obvious that there is no objective content. Their "criteria" in
nearly every case is clearly selected to get the results they want to
meet whatever their agenda is, not to provide an honest comparison.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:07:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 6:30�pm, "Theron" > wrote:
> >> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about gas
> >> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
> >> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a �Weber Silver Genes B for
> >> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
> >> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
> >> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
> >> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't think
> >> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to heat
> >> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as cast
> >> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from the
> >> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
> >> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
> >> many of us can afford that!
> >>
> >> Ed
> >
> > I quit reading Consumer Reports because it got to a point where I
> > completely disagreed with a lot of their ratings. I think they were
> > using the same testers with the same preconceived ideas as to what's
> > good and what's bad over and over again. I prefer to read user
> > reviews on sites like Amazon or Epinions. Yes, there are the ones
> > that say, "This is crap", but there are also some well written reviews
> > that explain exactly why the reviewer liked or didn't like something
> > and what features need to be added or removed from the item. I think
> > you get a more honest assessement from someone using the product in
> > the real world rather than from someone wearing a white coat working
> > in a lab.
>
> but what you don't typically get at amazon or epinions is how a product
> compares with similar products from different makers.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Quite true, however when you do find a detailed report, it is typically
much more objective than the CR garbage. You still have to find good
reports on competitive products and do your own assessment. This still
doesn't replace the need to examine the product in question personally
in a store, but it provides valuable information on what areas of the
product you need to pay extra attention to.

blake wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:36:31 GMT:


> i see only one instance in s a brief run through google, where
> suzuki alleged rigged test when their s.u.v. got a bad rating.
> is there more?

> and it reached the supreme court in the 'bogus legal system,'
> which declined to hear the case. it seems to me suzuki had
> their day in court and failed to make their case.

There has been more than one challenge to Consumer Reports but I think
ignorance rather than malice is the reason for complaint. One I
particularly remember was the challenge by the Bose company on a report
on loudspeakers, which was finally settled out of court, I believe..
Bose makes good and realistc-sounding equipment but on a basis of strict
accuracy of frequency reproduction, they don't stand out and that was
the basis for CR's rating. I'll admit that I own a Bose Wave Radio.
Friends have told me that they thought some of their reports on
computers were inadequate tho' I can't say I've really noticed that.

One area that annoys me is the lack of acknowledgement when something is
brought to their attention. For instance, I have a Kenwood refrigerator
whose finish has rusted badly a year or two outside the warranty period
and I have not been able to get any response.

For the hell of it, I'll add my general purpose Consumer Reports letter.

The All-Purpose Recent Consumer Reports Review Of Widgets

*All text between asterisks should be replaced by your own choice or
deleted as appropriate*.

The latest issue of Consumer Reports has a new review of *widgets*. As
ever, Consumer Reports misses the important points familiar to we
serious professional *widget* users. For example, Consumer Reports does
not take into account significant aspects like *colors of widgets*.
Anyone who really needs to choose a *widget* would of course go to the
*Widget Review* for information and for reviewers that we all know are
not influenced by commercial considerations.

Of course, Consumer Reports is suitable for reviews of minor things like
*cameras, cars, refrigerators, computers etc* for ordinary users and
amateurs but, as we experts all know, Consumer Reports has its own
agenda and a notorious bias against *widgets*.

*Optional Common Pugnacious Insults taken from the net
that could be added:*

*Consumer Reports is probably OK for Joe Sixpack - just not for
anyone with room temperature IQ and any knowledge of subject matter.*

*They've never taught me a thing - and they have, to my
knowledge, completely and totally ignored Linux.*



--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

> "Theron"wrote:
>
>> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about
>> gas
>> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
>> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B
>> for
>> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
>> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
>> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
>> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't
>> think
>> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to
>> heat
>> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as
>> cast
>> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from
>> the
>> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
>> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
>> many of us can afford that!
>>
>> Ed

So what exactly is your complaint... you are being as non-specific as you
claim CR is... that they ommited a topic that you would like included is not
anything to whine about... Consumer Report is a cheap slick paper magazine
that I'm sure devoted less than six pages to discussing more than a dozen
grills, not a 2000 page Scientific Report demonstrating BTU energy absorbed
per millisecond over a five minute period at an ambient temperature of 72ºF
while cooking one jumbo shrimp with infrared. I'm sure you can phone Weber
and discuss whatever grilling minutia you feel is important. That you
disagree with their opinions is meaningless, your opinion carries no more
weight than anyone elses... opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
That you can't afford $800 is your shortcoming, not theirs. And that you
can't afford $800 tells me you'll never have enough dollars all at one to
fill that smoker, all you're gonna cook anyway is a few mystery meat burgers
and cheap tube steak once each month when your food stamps arrive.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Theron" > wrote:
>
> > I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I just think they
> > don't, or didn't in this case have the expertise to accurately rate the
> > product.
>
> Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they called defects were
> good features to me.

I eventually figured out that Consumer Reports is for and
by non-experts. Any field I know well I'm going to disagree
with them in that field. Any field I barely touch, chances
are pretty good their opinion will include issues I won't
think of in the first few hours.

When I was an audiophile in college I thought their advice
nonsense. Now if I want a new stereo their advice is good
enough for me.

Being a foodie posting on RFC I'm unlikely to have interest
in their advice on cookware. Only using my back yard
grill for simple meals their advice on grills is likely good
enough for me. It's natural that an expert griller posting
on AFB won't see their advice on grills the way I do.

I've got a Charbroil propane grill with 3 internal burners and
1 burner on the side. To this day I've never cooked anything
on the side one. The types of food I'd want to cook on that
one I can do far better inside on the regular stove.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Theron" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I just think
>> they don't, or didn't in this case have the expertise to accurately
>> rate the product.
>
> Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they called defects
> were good features to me.

LOL!!! All one needs to do is to pick a specialized area where CR does one
of their famous 'evaluations' of the equipment used (for example: audio gear
on one of the audio NGs) and ask the participants what they think of
Consumer Reports. I have never heard anything but derisive snickers and
spitting on the ground when such occurs.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:57:21 -0700:

> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Theron" > wrote in message
>>
>>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I
>>> just think they don't, or didn't in this case have the
>>> expertise to accurately rate the product.
>>
>> Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they called
>> defects were good features to me.

> LOL!!! All one needs to do is to pick a specialized area where
> CR does one of their famous 'evaluations' of the equipment
> used (for example: audio gear on one of the audio NGs) and ask the
> participants what they think of Consumer Reports. I have never
> heard anything but derisive snickers and spitting on the
> ground when such occurs.

Humph! I guess I'm not one of the elite. Jim Sixpack perhaps?

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Theron wrote:

>
> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I just think they
> don't, or didn't in this case have the expertise to accurately rate the
> product. Look at the article, and look at the salmon steak in the picture.
> It, to me, doesn't look like it was on a grill.
>
> Ed
>



My beef with CR is that they test inexpensive things (OJ concentrate,
canned soups, etc.) that would be so easy for the consumers to test for
ourselves. When they test bigger ticket items like appliances, they
often test only a few brands and models which leaves a lot of questions
about the others.

Every few years they tempt me into a subscription and I'm always sorry
afterward.

gloria p

James Silverton wrote:
> Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:57:21 -0700:
>
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "Theron" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I
>>>> just think they don't, or didn't in this case have the
>>>> expertise to accurately rate the product.
>>>
>>> Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they called
>>> defects were good features to me.
>
>> LOL!!! All one needs to do is to pick a specialized area where
>> CR does one of their famous 'evaluations' of the equipment
>> used (for example: audio gear on one of the audio NGs) and ask the
>> participants what they think of Consumer Reports. I have never
>> heard anything but derisive snickers and spitting on the
>> ground when such occurs.
>
> Humph! I guess I'm not one of the elite. Jim Sixpack perhaps?

It has nothing to do with the 'elite'. It has to do with people who are
knowledegable about equipment vs. CR who has no particular expertise.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:01:53 -0700:

> James Silverton wrote:
>> Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:57:21 -0700:
>>
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> "Theron" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I
>>>>> just think they don't, or didn't in this case have the
>>>>> expertise to accurately rate the product.
>>>>
>>>> Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they
>>>> called defects were good features to me.
>>
>>> LOL!!! All one needs to do is to pick a specialized area
>>> where CR does one of their famous 'evaluations' of the
>>> equipment used (for example: audio gear on one of the audio NGs)
>>> and ask the participants what they think of Consumer
>>> Reports. I have never heard anything but derisive snickers
>>> and spitting on the ground when such occurs.
>>
>> Humph! I guess I'm not one of the elite. Jim Sixpack perhaps?

> It has nothing to do with the 'elite'. It has to do with
> people who are knowledegable about equipment vs. CR who has no
> particular expertise.

Exactly what I said!

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:
> Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:01:53 -0700:
>
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>> Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:57:21 -0700:
>>>
>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> "Theron" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I
>>>>>> just think they don't, or didn't in this case have the
>>>>>> expertise to accurately rate the product.
>>>>>
>>>>> Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they
>>>>> called defects were good features to me.
>>>
>>>> LOL!!! All one needs to do is to pick a specialized area
>>>> where CR does one of their famous 'evaluations' of the
>>>> equipment used (for example: audio gear on one of the audio NGs)
>>>> and ask the participants what they think of Consumer
>>>> Reports. I have never heard anything but derisive snickers
>>>> and spitting on the ground when such occurs.
>>>
>>> Humph! I guess I'm not one of the elite. Jim Sixpack perhaps?
>
>> It has nothing to do with the 'elite'. It has to do with
>> people who are knowledegable about equipment vs. CR who has no
>> particular expertise.
>
> Exactly what I said!

I'll take your word for it, James. I am still not seeing it from what you
wrote, sorry :-)

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

"Theron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ster.com...
>>
>> Theron wrote:
>>>
>>> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about
>>> gas
>>> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
>>> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a Weber Silver Genes B
>>> for
>>> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
>>> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
>>> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
>>> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't
>>> think
>>> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to
>>> heat
>>> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as
>>> cast
>>> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from
>>> the
>>> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
>>> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker.
>>> How
>>> many of us can afford that!
>>>
>>> Ed

I was a CR subscriber for years, back when I was young. Then, as I grew
older and had my own experiences with products, I began to see that the CR
criteria used for evaluations didn't match up well with the things I
personally liked or disliked in a product. The magazine is still probably a
good place to start a search for something you're totally unfamiliar with,
but nothing really beats your own past experiences.

Regarding the grate, I also agree with you, Ed. What creates the sear lines
is affected by the thermal conductivity of the material and its mass.
Titanium grates of any thickness would be a poor choice for a grill, since
it's a lousy conductor of heat. (that's also a reason why it's good for a
wris****ch). You could fire up the grate until it's red hot, but when the
steak hits the titanium bars, they won't be as able to transfer heat to the
steak as would one of iron. Likewise, a grate made of very thin strips of
even cast iron would work poorly because they would have too little mass to
store the heat so it could be released onto the meat and give it a sear
line.

When my ship comes in, I want to be like Brick and have my grates cast out
of pure gold. That'd give me great sear lines. . . and would be great for
retirement.<grin>

--
Nonny

Americans worry whether the rest of the world
considers us dumb, so we go to the polls and
remove all doubt.

Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:54:14 -0700:

> James Silverton wrote:
>> Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:01:53 -0700:
>>
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>> Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:57:21 -0700:
>>>>
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> "Theron" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest.
>>>>>>> I just think they don't, or didn't in this case have the
>>>>>>> expertise to accurately rate the product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Years ago I quite reading it when characteristics they
>>>>>> called defects were good features to me.
>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! All one needs to do is to pick a specialized area
>>>>> where CR does one of their famous 'evaluations' of the
>>>>> equipment used (for example: audio gear on one of the audio NGs)
>>>>> and ask the participants what they think of Consumer
>>>>> Reports. I have never heard anything but derisive snickers
>>>>> and spitting on the ground when such occurs.
>>>>
>>>> Humph! I guess I'm not one of the elite. Jim Sixpack
>>>> perhaps?
>>
>>> It has nothing to do with the 'elite'. It has to do with
>>> people who are knowledegable about equipment vs. CR who has
>>> no particular expertise.
>>
>> Exactly what I said!

> I'll take your word for it, James. I am still not seeing it
> from what you wrote, sorry :-)

Take a look at my
"The All-Purpose Recent Consumer Reports Review Of Widgets"
in my original post :-)



--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:

> Take a look at my
> "The All-Purpose Recent Consumer Reports Review Of Widgets"
> in my original post :-)

Ahhhh, I see it now. Thanks, James :-) That was funny!!
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

In article >,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> James Silverton wrote:
> > Dave wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:57:21 -0700:

> >> LOL!!! All one needs to do is to pick a specialized area where
> >> CR does one of their famous 'evaluations' of the equipment
> >> used (for example: audio gear on one of the audio NGs) and ask the
> >> participants what they think of Consumer Reports. I have never
> >> heard anything but derisive snickers and spitting on the
> >> ground when such occurs.
> >
> > Humph! I guess I'm not one of the elite. Jim Sixpack perhaps?
>
> It has nothing to do with the 'elite'. It has to do with people who are
> knowledegable about equipment vs. CR who has no particular expertise.

Then again, the number one self-appointed expert on food on this food
newsgroup is Sheldon. Just ask him. I don't know about the audio
newsgroups, but I am subscribed to a medical group (sci.med.vision), and
the consensus among the loudest people is that medical people know
nothing about medicine. Only True Science people know anything, and no,
these aren't people with credentials and experience in science, they are
engineers.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"James Silverton" > wrote:

> blake wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:36:31 GMT:
>
>
> > i see only one instance in s a brief run through google, where
> > suzuki alleged rigged test when their s.u.v. got a bad rating.
> > is there more?
>
> > and it reached the supreme court in the 'bogus legal system,'
> > which declined to hear the case. it seems to me suzuki had
> > their day in court and failed to make their case.
>
> There has been more than one challenge to Consumer Reports but I think
> ignorance rather than malice is the reason for complaint. One I
> particularly remember was the challenge by the Bose company on a report
> on loudspeakers, which was finally settled out of court, I believe..

Wikipedia says differently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Co...n#Legal_action

In 1981 Bose unsuccessfully sued the magazine Consumer Reports for
libel. Consumer Reports reported in a review that the sound from the
system that they reviewed "tended to wander about the room." Initially,
the Federal District Court found that Consumer Reports "had published
the false statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard of its truth or falsity" when it changed what the original
reviewer wrote about the speakers in his pre-publication draft. The
Court of Appeals then reversed the trial court's ruling on liability,
and the United States Supreme Court affirmed in a 6-3 vote in the case
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., finding that the
statement was made without actual malice, and therefore there was no
liability for libel.[45][46][47]

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"Nonny" > wrote:


> I was a CR subscriber for years, back when I was young. Then, as I grew
> older and had my own experiences with products, I began to see that the CR
> criteria used for evaluations didn't match up well with the things I
> personally liked or disliked in a product.

One of the things I like best about CR is that they put their criteria
pretty explicitly in the ratings. If I have different criteria, I can
often still use their ratings.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In alt.food.barbecue Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Nonny" > wrote:
> > I was a CR subscriber for years, back when I was young. Then, as I grew
> > older and had my own experiences with products, I began to see that the CR
> > criteria used for evaluations didn't match up well with the things I
> > personally liked or disliked in a product.

> One of the things I like best about CR is that they put their criteria
> pretty explicitly in the ratings. If I have different criteria, I can
> often still use their ratings.

Yes! I have the same feeling. I frequently disagree with what they
consider important criteria, but as long as they state what they are
basing their ratings/judgements on, I can often get useful information
out of their tests. Sometimes they are just useless, though.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:23:14 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:01:47 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I *know* they do. It was well publicized and they only avoided getting
>>> convicted of it through wrangling in the bogus legal system.
>>
>> i see only one instance in s a brief run through google, where suzuki
>> alleged rigged test when their s.u.v. got a bad rating. is there more?
>>
>> and it reached the supreme court in the 'bogus legal system,' which
>> declined to hear the case. it seems to me suzuki had their day in court
>> and failed to make their case.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> That was certainly the most blatant case, however if you take the time
> to look over a few issues of the CR babble at a library, it will be
> quite obvious that there is no objective content. Their "criteria" in
> nearly every case is clearly selected to get the results they want to
> meet whatever their agenda is, not to provide an honest comparison.

o.k. with no cites at all, i'll certainly take your word that consumer
reports is corrupt just because you *know* it's true.

blake

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:43:01 GMT, James Silverton wrote:

> blake wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:36:31 GMT:
>
>> i see only one instance in s a brief run through google, where
>> suzuki alleged rigged test when their s.u.v. got a bad rating.
>> is there more?
>
>> and it reached the supreme court in the 'bogus legal system,'
>> which declined to hear the case. it seems to me suzuki had
>> their day in court and failed to make their case.
>
> There has been more than one challenge to Consumer Reports but I think
> ignorance rather than malice is the reason for complaint. One I
> particularly remember was the challenge by the Bose company on a report
> on loudspeakers, which was finally settled out of court, I believe..
> Bose makes good and realistc-sounding equipment but on a basis of strict
> accuracy of frequency reproduction, they don't stand out and that was
> the basis for CR's rating. I'll admit that I own a Bose Wave Radio.
> Friends have told me that they thought some of their reports on
> computers were inadequate tho' I can't say I've really noticed that.
>

audiophiles have long contended that c.r.'s ratings were useless, but
that's a very much more subjective thing than, say, toaster ovens.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:26:30 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:07:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 6:30�pm, "Theron" > wrote:
>>>> Consumer Reports this month published an absolutely crappy article about gas
>>>> grills. So bad, in fact, that I have to share this for those that don't
>>>> subscribe. Like many on this NG I've been using a �Weber Silver Genes B for
>>>> years and I'd like to move to an infrared grill for its capacity to char
>>>> meat at high temps. In this whole review they didn't mention high heat
>>>> ability! They didn't even mention infrared heat in their rhetoric, even
>>>> though the Char-Broil and Napoleon grills are infrared grills! I don't think
>>>> they understand BTU/hour. BTU/hour per square foot is highly related to heat
>>>> output and temp. Stainless steel grates were felt to be as effective as cast
>>>> iron grates. In a non infrared heat grill it isn't. The sear comes from the
>>>> grate. Then the climax! There was one little column about smoking. Their
>>>> only product mentioned was the $800 Lil' Tex. No doubt a good smoker. How
>>>> many of us can afford that!
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>> I quit reading Consumer Reports because it got to a point where I
>>> completely disagreed with a lot of their ratings. I think they were
>>> using the same testers with the same preconceived ideas as to what's
>>> good and what's bad over and over again. I prefer to read user
>>> reviews on sites like Amazon or Epinions. Yes, there are the ones
>>> that say, "This is crap", but there are also some well written reviews
>>> that explain exactly why the reviewer liked or didn't like something
>>> and what features need to be added or removed from the item. I think
>>> you get a more honest assessement from someone using the product in
>>> the real world rather than from someone wearing a white coat working
>>> in a lab.
>>
>> but what you don't typically get at amazon or epinions is how a product
>> compares with similar products from different makers.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Quite true, however when you do find a detailed report, it is typically
> much more objective than the CR garbage. You still have to find good
> reports on competitive products and do your own assessment. This still
> doesn't replace the need to examine the product in question personally
> in a store, but it provides valuable information on what areas of the
> product you need to pay extra attention to.

well, sure. i'm just pointing out that reports from amazon or epinions and
those of c.r. are fundamentally different things.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:47:22 -0600, gloria.p wrote:

> Theron wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think Consumer Reports does anything dishonest. I just think they
>> don't, or didn't in this case have the expertise to accurately rate the
>> product. Look at the article, and look at the salmon steak in the picture.
>> It, to me, doesn't look like it was on a grill.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> My beef with CR is that they test inexpensive things (OJ concentrate,
> canned soups, etc.) that would be so easy for the consumers to test for
> ourselves. When they test bigger ticket items like appliances, they
> often test only a few brands and models which leaves a lot of questions
> about the others.
>
> Every few years they tempt me into a subscription and I'm always sorry
> afterward.
>
> gloria p

i've never been tempted to subscribe, but i have gone to the library to see
what they say about certain items before i bought.

i wish they had a free site on the 'net, because i'm cheap.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:43:01 GMT, James Silverton wrote:
>
> > blake wrote on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:36:31 GMT:
> >
> >> i see only one instance in s a brief run through google, where
> >> suzuki alleged rigged test when their s.u.v. got a bad rating.
> >> is there more?
> >
> >> and it reached the supreme court in the 'bogus legal system,'
> >> which declined to hear the case. it seems to me suzuki had
> >> their day in court and failed to make their case.
> >
> > There has been more than one challenge to Consumer Reports but I think
> > ignorance rather than malice is the reason for complaint. One I
> > particularly remember was the challenge by the Bose company on a report
> > on loudspeakers, which was finally settled out of court, I believe..
> > Bose makes good and realistc-sounding equipment but on a basis of strict
> > accuracy of frequency reproduction, they don't stand out and that was
> > the basis for CR's rating. I'll admit that I own a Bose Wave Radio.
> > Friends have told me that they thought some of their reports on
> > computers were inadequate tho' I can't say I've really noticed that.
> >
>
> audiophiles have long contended that c.r.'s ratings were useless, but
> that's a very much more subjective thing than, say, toaster ovens.

And, Bose speakers are sometimes rated well by CR. Does that mean that
CR is inconsistent, or that Bose is inconsistent?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:


> i've never been tempted to subscribe, but i have gone to the library to see
> what they say about certain items before i bought.
>
> i wish they had a free site on the 'net, because i'm cheap.

They *do* have a free site, but it has very limited information. A few
years back, I was buying a car, and wanted lots of information. I
subscribed to their paid site for one month, at a cost of US$2.95. I
think I got my money's worth. With a credit card, it took me a few
seconds to subscribe, and at the end of the month, another few seconds
to unsubscribe.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Don't know how it is now, but there once were two report-type
magazines with almost the same name. One was pretty legitimate
and the other seemed to me to be sponsor driven. Perhaps some are
confused. BTW, wasn't Consumer Union the parent of Consumer
Reports and tied up in some kind of Anita Bryant thing?
--
Nonny

Americans worry whether the rest of the world
considers us dumb, so we go to the polls and
remove all doubt.

> wrote in message ...
> In alt.food.barbecue Dan Abel > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Nonny" > wrote:
>> > I was a CR subscriber for years, back when I was young. Then, as I
>> > grew
>> > older and had my own experiences with products, I began to see that the
>> > CR
>> > criteria used for evaluations didn't match up well with the things I
>> > personally liked or disliked in a product.
>
>> One of the things I like best about CR is that they put their criteria
>> pretty explicitly in the ratings. If I have different criteria, I can
>> often still use their ratings.
>
> Yes! I have the same feeling. I frequently disagree with what they
> consider important criteria, but as long as they state what they are
> basing their ratings/judgements on, I can often get useful information
> out of their tests. Sometimes they are just useless, though.
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.
>
>
I've been a CR subscriber for at least 20 years and wouldn't consider
stopping that. What I didn't like about this article particularly is what
they left out and the seeming naivety of the people grilling.

Ed

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:48:53 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> i've never been tempted to subscribe, but i have gone to the library to see
>> what they say about certain items before i bought.
>>
>> i wish they had a free site on the 'net, because i'm cheap.
>
> They *do* have a free site, but it has very limited information. A few
> years back, I was buying a car, and wanted lots of information. I
> subscribed to their paid site for one month, at a cost of US$2.95. I
> think I got my money's worth. With a credit card, it took me a few
> seconds to subscribe, and at the end of the month, another few seconds
> to unsubscribe.

yeah, i know about the one-month option.

i don't often make big- (or even semi-big) ticket purchases, so i go to the
library. they have a couple years' worth of the magazine with an index.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:28:36 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:48:53 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> i've never been tempted to subscribe, but i have gone to the library to see
>>> what they say about certain items before i bought.
>>>
>>> i wish they had a free site on the 'net, because i'm cheap.
>>
>> They *do* have a free site, but it has very limited information. A few
>> years back, I was buying a car, and wanted lots of information. I
>> subscribed to their paid site for one month, at a cost of US$2.95. I
>> think I got my money's worth. With a credit card, it took me a few
>> seconds to subscribe, and at the end of the month, another few seconds
>> to unsubscribe.
>
>yeah, i know about the one-month option.
>
>i don't often make big- (or even semi-big) ticket purchases, so i go to the
>library. they have a couple years' worth of the magazine with an index.
>
If you're buying a car, read Edmunds.com.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.