[net.micro] 1574

gillies@mit-eddie.UUCP (Don Gillies) (09/10/83)

About Consumer Reports and rating microcomputers:

	1:  There is evidence that alot of the testing that CU
	    claims to have done, is never done.

	2:  Their articles often have misleading pictures, such as
	    a picture of a "panel of experts".

	3:  The circulation manager for CU sincerely believes that
	    people read the magazine for entertainment, not information.


This information comes to me by word of mouth, so I am reluctant to
reveal the source.

						Don Gillies
		uucp:	ihnp4!allegra!genrad!mit-eddie!gillies
		arpa:	gillies@mit-xx	

mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/12/83)

	From: gillies@mit-eddie.UUCP

	1:  There is evidence that alot of the testing that CU
	    claims to have done, is never done.

What evidence?  Your anonymous source?  That isn't evidence.

	2:  Their articles often have misleading pictures, such as
	    a picture of a "panel of experts".

Are we talking about the same magazine?  I have read Consumers
Reports for 10 years and they have NEVER shown a picture of
a panel of experts.  Do you read it?  Is it possible you
have confused CU with one of the look-alikes, like consumer
digest?  (The look-alikes are terrible).  This statement
of yours is so obviously wrong that it casts a LOT of doubt
on anything else you and your informant say.
-- 
spoken:	mark weiser
UUCP:	{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet:	mark@umcp-cs
ARPA:	mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

billh@hp-pcd.UUCP (09/14/83)

#R:mit-eddi:-70900:hp-pcd:6200025:000:446
hp-pcd!billh    Sep 13 09:46:00 1983


	Consumer Reports often prints a request (maybe in every issue)
for anyone who believes accusations such as yours to put it in writing,
sign and date it, and send it to CU (I don't know the address offhand)
so that they may respond.  Please do so if you really believe your own
statement.

	I personally can't understand your feelings.  I am convinced
that Consumers Union is the most trustworthy source of consumer
information available.

billh

stevens@inuxa.UUCP (09/14/83)

I have never seen a picture in Consumer Reports that I would consider
misleading, let alone a picture of a "panel of experts."

-- Scott Stevens
-- AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis
-- UUCP: inuxa!stevens

CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (09/15/83)

From:  Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>

RE:  posting of gillies@mit-xx   attacking Consumers Report.

unless you provide evidence for such SERIOUS attacks on what I consider is
a unique magazine in this world, unmatched in its efforts and work for the
consumer,
	well, unless you do so, I expect a public apology for this
	unsubstantiated bad-mouthing.  at least, if you care to be
	respected in this public forum.

Werner (UUCP:		ut-ngp!werner  or  ut-ngp!utastro!werner
	 via:	{ decvax!eagle , ucbvax!nbires , gatech!allegra!eagle , ihnp4 }
	ARPA: werner@utexas-20   or  werner@utexas-11			)

P.S.  sorry, folks for this "misplaced" discussion.  no FOLLOW-UP or FLAME
	group exists on the ARPANET.
-------

earl@brl-vld@sri-unix.UUCP (09/20/83)

From:      Earl Weaver (VLD/VMB) <earl@brl-vld>

I'm sure CU means well, but I NEVER blindly accept their recommendations for
"best rated."  Many times CU has put an excellent product at the bottom of the
list because of something or other that poses a safety or operational problem
to a moron.  I'm surprised they haven't given all knives an unaccaptable rating
because they cut.  In some cases I think the raters don't even know anything
about the product or how it's supposed to be used.  CU's publication is like
any other piece of print: most of it is good, but some of it really misses the
mark.

CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (09/20/83)

From:  Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>

	enough said on MICRO.  let's move this to NET.FLAME (on USENET).
	anyone without access to it from ARPA may request forwarding
	by a friend.
-------

jed@mb2c.UUCP (John E. Duncan) (09/28/83)

I gave up on Consumer Reports when they panned the Fiat X-1/9.  Not
that there weren't any number of good reasons to gripe -- rust, lack
of power, lack of durability... but no, they panned it because it
"responded to driver inputs too quickly".  You see with the engine
in the middle its like an ice skater who pulls their arms in and
spins faster and faster...

I could go on, but this isn't net.auto.  If you trust Consumers Reports
to test your computers for you then you should limit your purchases to
machines which can be bought at Toys-R-Us.

John Duncan (mb2c!jed)		Michigan Bell		(313) 424-0178

P.S. --
1i
*** FLAME ON ***