Where the criteria are almost universally known and understood, CU is
quite useful. I was reading about ranges today, where their key criteria
are clear and very meaningful. For example, for low heat performance,
they rate how well the low heat burner(s) can melt chocholate and keep
it liquid without burning it and how good the high heat burner(s) are at
simmering tomato sauce without burning. Perfect!
I certainly agree about them and camera and stereo equipment. I would
add digital equipment in general to the caveat list. On the other hand,
I think they are quite useful about cars for many characteristics. I
could choose a car for my mother based entirely on CU and certainly pick
a suitable one, if not the best one. Even when considering performance
and intangibles that they can't do well, I think they are useful for
defining the field to look further into.
Of course, I bought my current car even though it was on their don't buy
list for frequency of repair. Even so, their annual auto issue helped me
determine it was literally the only car that met all my other criteria.
I'm still happy with it 8+ years later.
Moose
scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Consumer reports is fine for reviews on things like laundry
>detergents and dishwashers, but I learned a long time ago not to rely
>on them for reviews on stereo equipment, automobiles or camera
>equipment.
>
>-Stephen.
>
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|