magazine
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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'm still alive, thank you.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

magazine
 

In article ,
Pyriform 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.

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.

It is impossible to give accurate advice for the individual - all you can
do is give guidance to help them make up their own mind. Unfortunately,
Which reports tend to get judged on their headlines published by the meja,
- far from the complete story. Which is why you need to read it all.

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.

Really? Are you equally concerned about all other magazines and TV progs
etc giving opinions on consumer products?

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!

Never heard of the postal preferences scheme? That stops this sort of junk
mail. Or are you also against an organisation being allowed to promote
itself within the law - or only just Which doing this?

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

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

magazine
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
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.

I'd guess this was rather before I read Which - and why did they change
the spark plugs? It's not something they tend to do when testing cars...
However, the Rover P6 2000 suffered from many flaws when first introduced,
some cured with development, some not.

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.

I suppose you can put that interpretation on events. However, given pretty
well the same happened with all other UK owned and manufactured goods
perhaps it was the UK companies that were somehow to blame? Not responding
to consumer demand being the prime one - 'we know better what they really
need and want'?

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.

Since you know the sample size it was obviously published in Which - and
certainly these days they make a point if that sample is too small for any
pattern to be established. However, any sample which shows a maker in a
bad light, reliability wise, is always too small a sample for that maker -
as recently happened with Jaguar cars.

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

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

magazine
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

Really? Are you equally concerned about all other magazines and TV
progs etc giving opinions on consumer products?

I am concerned about misleading or incorrect information wherever it is
published. But when it comes from Which the detrimental effect is amplified
by their lofty stance of absolute objectivity.

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!

Never heard of the postal preferences scheme? That stops this sort of
junk mail.

I have my own way of dealing with junk mail - I send the offenders each
other's junk, using their reply-paid envelopes. Much more satisfying.

Or are you also against an organisation being allowed to
promote itself within the law - or only just Which doing this?

I don't object to Which promoting themselves. I just think the way they
choose to do it reflects badly on the organisation. Perhaps you've never
seen any of the material to which I refer, given that you already subscribe.

magazine
 

In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
Really? Are you equally concerned about all other magazines and TV
progs etc giving opinions on consumer products?

I am concerned about misleading or incorrect information wherever it is
published. But when it comes from Which the detrimental effect is
amplified by their lofty stance of absolute objectivity.

You think they claim that? Have you ever read it?

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!

Never heard of the postal preferences scheme? That stops this sort of
junk mail.

I have my own way of dealing with junk mail - I send the offenders each
other's junk, using their reply-paid envelopes. Much more satisfying.

You must have plenty time on your hands. Junk mail here goes straight into
the re-cycling sack unopened.

Or are you also against an organisation being allowed to
promote itself within the law - or only just Which doing this?

I don't object to Which promoting themselves. I just think the way they
choose to do it reflects badly on the organisation. Perhaps you've never
seen any of the material to which I refer, given that you already
subscribe.

I think I get some for the parts of Which I don't subscribe to. No matter
- it gets treated the same way as all of it.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

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

magazine
 

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 17:18:08 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I am concerned about misleading or incorrect information wherever it is
published. But when it comes from Which the detrimental effect is
amplified by their lofty stance of absolute objectivity.

You think they claim that? Have you ever read it?

Their website does:
"No advertising, no bias, no hidden agenda. Just expert advice from an
independent source."

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

sound of exploding irony meter
--
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 ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
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.

I'd guess this was rather before I read Which - and why did they change
the spark plugs? It's not something they tend to do when testing cars...

Apparently they liked to do their own servicing rather than letting an
authorised dealer do the work.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
I am concerned about misleading or incorrect information wherever it is
published. But when it comes from Which the detrimental effect is
amplified by their lofty stance of absolute objectivity.

You think they claim that? Have you ever read it?

Their website does:
"No advertising, no bias, no hidden agenda. Just expert advice from an
independent source."

That's 'a lofty stance of absolute objectivity'?

Sounds more like a statement of fact.

--
*All generalizations are false.

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

magazine
 

In article , Pyriform wrote:
I have my own way of dealing with junk mail - I send the offenders each
other's junk, using their reply-paid envelopes. Much more satisfying.

PC World sell a cross-cut shredder that can take 8 sheets at once,
including staples, and mince them into confetti. If I get anything I don't
want that has my name and address on it, I just post it in the slot on the
top. Now *that's* satisfying.

Rod.

magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Their website does:
"No advertising, no bias, no hidden agenda. Just expert advice from an
independent source."

That's 'a lofty stance of absolute objectivity'?

Sounds more like a statement of fact.

Are you financially involved with them aside from paying for the rag?
You seem desperate to defend them no matter what.

I defend them in that they do what they set out to do - to give a guide to
the average punter, not enthusiast. Non of which will agree about reviews
in 'their' mags either, come to that.
Most who criticise Which have never even read it but base their views on
newspaper headlines.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

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