magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew 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.

So you think they should search the world and buy one of everything and
test then all? Sounds like a good idea but rather impractical. So they
stick to things which anyone can buy easily - which usually means on sale
in the high street. The next test of PVRs will likely include the Toppy -
which I've bought even although a Which subscriber.

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

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

magazine
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew 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.

So you think they should search the world and buy one of everything
and test then all? Sounds like a good idea but rather impractical. So
they stick to things which anyone can buy easily - which usually
means on sale in the high street.

No, they should get a clue about the products they are reviewing, and select
them accordingly. We live in the Internet age, and plenty of people are
happy to shop online.

Perhaps if they concentrated on technical competence, rather then on
marketing promotions reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Reader's
Digest, they might have a magazine worth buying.

magazine
 

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:20:40 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

So you think they should search the world and buy one of everything and
test then all? Sounds like a good idea but rather impractical. So they
stick to things which anyone can buy easily - which usually means on sale
in the high street. The next test of PVRs will likely include the Toppy -
which I've bought even although a Which subscriber.

I am sure Which are happy for your continued patronage despite
offering **** poor advice for the money.

I used to subscribe to it about 20 years ago, and found some of the
more generalised information about money and consumer matters to be
useful, but I quickly learned that product guides were of limited
value at best.

They are completely irrelevant in the Internet age.
--
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
 

In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
Perhaps if they concentrated on technical competence, rather then on
marketing promotions reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Reader's
Digest, they might have a magazine worth buying.

Why does it concern non Which members what Which contains? It's not
subsidised by direct funds from anywhere or advertising money, and I've
seen far more plain misleading equipment reviews in specialist mags who
arse lick the advertisers.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

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

magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
So you think they should search the world and buy one of everything and
test then all? Sounds like a good idea but rather impractical. So they
stick to things which anyone can buy easily - which usually means on sale
in the high street. The next test of PVRs will likely include the Toppy -
which I've bought even although a Which subscriber.

I am sure Which are happy for your continued patronage despite
offering **** poor advice for the money.

I used to subscribe to it about 20 years ago, and found some of the
more generalised information about money and consumer matters to be
useful, but I quickly learned that product guides were of limited
value at best.

They are completely irrelevant in the Internet age.

You'll be hard pressed to find unbiased reports on the web.
But no-one is forcing you to take out a Which subscription, so why so
antagonistic towards it? I can understand some makers not being happy
since they can't threaten to withdraw their advertising...

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

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

magazine
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You'll be hard pressed to find unbiased reports on the web.
But no-one is forcing you to take out a Which subscription, so why so
antagonistic towards it?

I once had a Which? subscription but found the reviews so inconsistent or
misleading that I ceased to subscribe. That, I would have thought to be
good enough reason for warning others off it.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

magazine
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Perhaps if they concentrated on technical competence, rather then on
marketing promotions reminiscent of the worst excesses of the
Reader's Digest, they might have a magazine worth buying.

Why does it concern non Which members what Which contains? It's not
subsidised by direct funds from anywhere or advertising money, and
I've seen far more plain misleading equipment reviews in specialist
mags who arse lick the advertisers.

I wasn't defending misleading reviews elsewhere. My problem with Which is
that its much vaunted impartiality leads some people to believe that by
reading it they are getting the very best advise possible, and that
frequently isn't true. And if denigrating good products (whether by
commission or omission) damages those products chances of success in the
marketplace, I have a right to be concerned.

I may not be a Which 'member', but I am often on the receiving end of their
promotional campaigns. These look very much like the kind of thing Which
ought to be criticising, not engaging in themselves!

magazine
 

In article ,
John Cartmell wrote:
Why does it concern non Which members what Which contains? It's not
subsidised by direct funds from anywhere or advertising money, and I've
seen far more plain misleading equipment reviews in specialist mags who
arse lick the advertisers.

Because Which have enough clout to destroy industries.

Perhaps you'd name one this happened to? Or perhaps you feel they were
unpatriotic in mentioning the various BL cars they tested which fell apart?

--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

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

magazine
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
You'll be hard pressed to find unbiased reports on the web.
But no-one is forcing you to take out a Which subscription, so why so
antagonistic towards it?

I once had a Which? subscription but found the reviews so inconsistent or
misleading that I ceased to subscribe. That, I would have thought to be
good enough reason for warning others off it.

Would you care to state when this was? The examples you've given here were
before living memory. ;-)

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

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

magazine
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Cartmell wrote:
Why does it concern non Which members what Which contains? It's not
subsidised by direct funds from anywhere or advertising money, and
I've seen far more plain misleading equipment reviews in specialist
mags who arse lick the advertisers.

Because Which have enough clout to destroy industries.

Perhaps you'd name one this happened to? Or perhaps you feel they were
unpatriotic in mentioning the various BL cars they tested which fell
apart?

As I remarked earlier they slated the Rover 2000 - because they (Which?)
had fitted the wrong sparking plugs. They told everyone that Japanese tv
sets were far more reliable that British ones so that the badge engineered
Japanese ones made in Wales far outsold the UK badged ones made in the same
factory and as a result that UK manufacturer pulled out of tv set making.

Possibly it was the same tv survey that said that Fergusson sets were far
more reliable than HMV - despite the fact it was exactly the same set in a
wooden as opposed to plastic cabinet. This was based on a survey of
subscribers of whom only 2 had HMV sets - one of which developed a fault.
So HMV sets had a 50% failure rate.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer