Sometimes, I think they don't know what they're doing. For example, then they evaluate digital SRL cameras, they always comment on the picture quality, yet they never explain whether it's the lens or the image sensor that makes the pictures from one DSLR better than another. For point-and-shoot cameras it doesn't matter but for DSLRs it makes every bit of difference because you can change the lens and probably change the picture quality. I want to know if it's the sensor that's limiting picture quality.

Also, I find their relative reliability ratings not useful. They don't tell me what kinds of repairs were required and how expensive they were. The ratings only measure number of repairs, not the price or the magnitude (e.g. fried circuit board vs. broken knob).

 Reply

We keep the past year's magazines in one of those cardboard magazine holders, for reference. Anything older than that, it's off to the public library. I didn't think the CR website was worth the money.

 Reply

their car reviews are good, longterm vehicular reliability claims are a little iffy, to obtain this data they send out a survey to some subscribers and ask them to rate their car.

the problem with that is a vast majority of readers are seniors and if they own, lets say, a mini cooper. their nostalgia clouds their judgment implying that its the best car on earth in terms of reliability. when, in turn, it has some serious design issues that effect interior reliability of some functions ie; seat heaters, toggle switches, radio.

just saying is all...

 Reply

Unfortunately, just because they don't accept advertising doesn't mean they aren't biased.

How else do you explain their rating of the Prius' gas mileage as moderate for its class? There was only one or two that even came close to its mileage.. [Back in 2002. I did lots of research before buying.]

They just didn't like the car because they skewed way too much toward luxury vehicles.

 Reply