Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="trebor" data-source="post: 134180" data-attributes="member: 419">CR testingThe flaw in C/R&#039;s Red Star/Windtunnel comparison is that when Miele asked to review the testing methodology CR refused to divulge what the actual particle capture device, percentage of capture calculations, or average particle size was. In other words, &quot;How DARE you question US? Those are our findings, you just believe them.&quot;Even Ronald Regan said, &quot;Trust, but verify&quot;Consumer reports is dependent on subscriptions for revenue. Look at their previous format in decades past: an article of explanation of testing methodology, actual grams of soil placed in the carpet, number of cleaning passes, and grams of soil removed, commentary on features and so forth.As reading comprehension and analytical thinking standards have declined, so have CR&#039;s rating been reduced to simple rankings. Only vacuum cleaner connoisseurs such as ourselves even bother to read past the first half-dozen. People now accept data at face value without questioning WHO is saying it?, as well as WHO BENEFITS if people believe what is said?, HOW were the conclusions reached? as well as HOW were the data interpreted to reach those conclusions? And last, but not least, the Big One, &quot;Do these data and these conclusions fit my particular situation?&quot;&nbsp; CR is adapting to their changing audience who are now demanding quick, instant decisions made for them so they can harbor the illusion that they are savvy, aware, conscious consumers. As the staff at CR has retired they are replaced with &#039;sound byte&#039; and &#039;news byte&#039; generation personnel who have the same mind set as their constituent audience. No matter what you say, the emperor really is nekkid, and it ain&#039;t pretty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="trebor, post: 134180, member: 419"] [b]CR testing[/b] The flaw in C/R's Red Star/Windtunnel comparison is that when Miele asked to review the testing methodology CR refused to divulge what the actual particle capture device, percentage of capture calculations, or average particle size was. In other words, "How DARE you question US? Those are our findings, you just believe them." Even Ronald Regan said, "Trust, but verify" Consumer reports is dependent on subscriptions for revenue. Look at their previous format in decades past: an article of explanation of testing methodology, actual grams of soil placed in the carpet, number of cleaning passes, and grams of soil removed, commentary on features and so forth. As reading comprehension and analytical thinking standards have declined, so have CR's rating been reduced to simple rankings. Only vacuum cleaner connoisseurs such as ourselves even bother to read past the first half-dozen. People now accept data at face value without questioning WHO is saying it?, as well as WHO BENEFITS if people believe what is said?, HOW were the conclusions reached? as well as HOW were the data interpreted to reach those conclusions? And last, but not least, the Big One, "Do these data and these conclusions fit my particular situation?" CR is adapting to their changing audience who are now demanding quick, instant decisions made for them so they can harbor the illusion that they are savvy, aware, conscious consumers. As the staff at CR has retired they are replaced with 'sound byte' and 'news byte' generation personnel who have the same mind set as their constituent audience. No matter what you say, the emperor really is nekkid, and it ain't pretty. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Reply to thread

Help Support VacuumLand: