magazine
 

bugbear wrote:
If I wanted to read a coupla' issues of a
"what telly to buy" magazine, just to get
a feel for what's around, what I might like,
all that...

what magazine is worth buying?

It strikes me that 10-15 quid on magazines
might be a wise investment prior to
spending over 1000 GPB on a telly

OK. So we've concluded (by majority vote)
that Which? isn't it.

Any other suggestions?

BugBear

magazine
 

bugbear wrote in
:


OK. So we've concluded (by majority vote)
that Which? isn't it.

Any other suggestions?

Sorry to say I think the glossy mags are equal rubbish; I've been led
expensively astray too many times.

I'm quite sure they're about as independent as politicians and paymasters,
I can only suggest you ask on usenet; but even then you have to factor in
the the background and prejudices of respondents.

But you'll have a better chance

mike

magazine
 

In article , Mike wrote:
OK. So we've concluded (by majority vote)
that Which? isn't it.

Any other suggestions?

Sorry to say I think the glossy mags are equal rubbish; I've been led
expensively astray too many times.

I'm quite sure they're about as independent as politicians and paymasters,
I can only suggest you ask on usenet; but even then you have to factor in
the the background and prejudices of respondents.

But you'll have a better chance

Seconded. I've found the same about Which? Magazine as the poster who said
reviews of familiar technology were so bad it made the other ones suspect,
and I wouldn't trust an "independent" review in a magazine that advertised
the product.

However, unbiased unedited opinions of real people who've actually bought and
used an item are much more informative. You have to expect a few nutters of
course, but they usually indicate clearly by the obsessive, inarticulate, or
downright offensive nature of their postings that their opinions are best
regarded as worthless, and can be disregarded.

A Google search for what you are considering buying, including the words
"user reviews" or "user comments" will probably give you more useful and
honest advice than you'd get from any magazine.

Rod.

magazine
 

In message , charles
writes
In article ,
bugbear wrote:
wrote:
You want "Which?" magazine. No BS. I have never been disappointed by
their recommendations


Hmm. I've always been most impressed with their reviews of things I know
nothing about.

Sadly, I've always found their reviews of items I know about to be
rubbish, which makes me suspect that my judgement of the other reviews.

It was Which?, by saying that UK colour sets were rubbish, caused the
downfall of that industry. A factory in South Wales which was jointly owned
by a japanese firm and a UK one, couldn't sell enough with the japanese
badge, but virtually none with the the uk one. Before long, the japanese
firm bought out their uk partners (who no longer exist).

The Rover 2000 car was slated for poor performance and that got lots of
press coverage. Which? later admitted that when they did the 500 mile
service on the new car, they'd fitted the wrong sparking plugs - but how
many people discovered that?

I have lots of other examples - but I won't bore you.


I bought one of these TV sets, based on glowing reports of excellent
quality and reliability (those made in Japan). I think I got one of the
first actually assembled in Wales. It had four faults in the first year.
Ian.
--

magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Yeah, a magazine that does a roundup of PVR's, recommends the Humax,
and doesn't even review the far superior Topfield. Very useful.

That's because it wasn't readily available. Perhaps things have changed
now.

--
*I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
It was Which?, by saying that UK colour sets were rubbish, caused the
downfall of that industry. A factory in South Wales which was jointly
owned by a japanese firm and a UK one, couldn't sell enough with the
japanese badge, but virtually none with the the uk one. Before long,
the japanese firm bought out their uk partners (who no longer exist).

Perhaps you'd tell us which UK set was the 'best'? I can certainly
remember those dreadful PIL sets when they first came out which weren't a
patch on my much older Philips.

The Rover 2000 car was slated for poor performance and that got lots of
press coverage. Which? later admitted that when they did the 500 mile
service on the new car, they'd fitted the wrong sparking plugs - but how
many people discovered that?

This would have been 1960 what?

I have lots of other examples - but I won't bore you.

It might be better if they were within living memory. ;-)

Which give guidance for the average punter - not the expert or hobbyist.
They will already read the specialist press - and of course agree with
every word. ;-)

I've bought near all the things I just want to do what they say on the box
and last well - like washing machines and hoovers, etc, on Which advice
and been happy. Not TV or Hi-Fi or cars. Those I care about, and decide on
for my particular requirements. Although Which owner reports on cars are
remarkably accurate IMHO as regards reliability and living with them.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:27:25 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

That's because it wasn't readily available. Perhaps things have changed
now.

If Which's research only goes as far as what is available in their
researchers local branch of Comet, then that is even more reason to
distrust them. So what if something (at the time) was only available
via the web? If it is a great product, they should still inform their
readers about it.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

magazine
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
However, unbiased unedited opinions of real people who've actually bought and
used an item are much more informative. You have to expect a few nutters of
course, but they usually indicate clearly by the obsessive, inarticulate, or
downright offensive nature of their postings that their opinions are best
regarded as worthless, and can be disregarded.

There's a more general problem, even with sincere intelligent
people. Most people will have gone through some kind
of evaluation process prior to making a choice.

It is only natural to want your choice to (have been)
the right one, and thus there is a string tendancy
to rationolise what you've got, even if it doesn't match
your original hopes.


A Google search for what you are considering buying, including the words
"user reviews" or "user comments" will probably give you more useful and
honest advice than you'd get from any magazine.

Sadly, crap "best buy" sites know this and do key word flooding,
rendering such searches less useful than you might hope.

BugBear

magazine
 

In article , Bugbear wrote:
However, unbiased unedited opinions of real people who've actually bought and
used an item are much more informative. You have to expect a few nutters of
course, but they usually indicate clearly by the obsessive, inarticulate, or
downright offensive nature of their postings that their opinions are best
regarded as worthless, and can be disregarded.

There's a more general problem, even with sincere intelligent
people. Most people will have gone through some kind
of evaluation process prior to making a choice.

It is only natural to want your choice to (have been)
the right one, and thus there is a string tendancy
to rationolise what you've got, even if it doesn't match
your original hopes.

Oh yes, I know about the "hi-fi cables syndrome", which is why I'm usually more
interested in reading the bad reviews than the good ones. I would recommend
looking out for any common feature in the complaints, as this might indicate a
problem that the company in question was failing to address, whereas a random
selection of different gripes could be the result of natural human bitchiness.
Where there are no restraints, some people will complain about anything, and all
you can do is try to recognise these.

A Google search for what you are considering buying, including the words
"user reviews" or "user comments" will probably give you more useful and
honest advice than you'd get from any magazine.

Sadly, crap "best buy" sites know this and do key word flooding,
rendering such searches less useful than you might hope.

"Caveat emptor" still applies, as always. On balance, I think the vastly increased
amount of information now available to us thanks to the internet is a Good Thing,
even if a large percentage of it is ********, as long as we recognise it when we
see it.

Rod.

magazine
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
"Caveat emptor" still applies, as always. On balance, I think the
vastly increased amount of information now available to us thanks to
the internet is a Good Thing, even if a large percentage of it is
********, as long as we recognise it when we see it.

Indeed. Sturgeon's law applies. The problem is that a lot of people are
unwilling or unable to apply critical thinking to things they read. This is
why I still receive a steady stream of helpfully forwarded crap in my inbox,
notifying me of the latest devastating mobile phone viruses ("this
information has been confirmed by Nokia and Motorola") or Bill Gates'
frantic attempts to divest himself of his fortune through the medium of
chain emails ("I'm a lawyer so I know this is true").

I thought I was making progress with my patient attempts to educate my
correspondents, until I discovered that one of them was still forwarding
crap, but had simply removed me from his distribution list - a recipient of
his latest missive forwarded it to me to ask if it was true...