Wow, Mojavean, that's really interesting about the founder of CR and its schism with CU. Or maybe schism isn't the right word, they were perhaps more sequential. Anyway, the reaction to the communist and union threat is really interesting. I, too, chewed on CU a bit in their recent "survey". I have done so in the past, though, and heard nary a thing. I know many, many who have criticized them in this way over the years. I think I even read an interview with the director responding to this sort of criticism a few years back. ("We can't release our findings because that would jeopardize our objectivity"... blah blah blah - nonsense. I suspect they won't release their findings to minimize that which specific companies can complain about, but of I course I don't really know). It really is a crying shame for CU not to morph into more open accountability. I should think the take-home lesson of wikileaks and this whole modern internet era is that more transparency is vital. If it hasn't happened already, sites like GW will leach CU's support as people take stock of their bomb-purchases and find other ways to supplant the "research" provided by CU. Trouble is, the aggregate summation of information provided by CU is unique, and the right, really the only way to provide useful information. I am really valuing GW, but at the end of the day, these are all just individual anecdotes, provided by strangers with varying degrees of reliability and their own often-unacknowledged sets of filters and biases. It's always been something of a transcendental and frankly, political question the degree to which one values anecdotes. But I should think this internet era ought to be pushing at least one forum (e.g., CU) to more thorough and open accountability, not less (which would be the inherent realm of a anecdote-site such as this). But it's always frustrating trying to tell another how to run their business! From salesmen who could actually *make* the sale if only they ever smiled, just once, to mega-testing firms that instill presumed filters onto their analysis without disclosing their makeup. I suppose there might be more hope of tilting at this windmill than at some others, in deference to their inherent or at least stated 'democracy' (I think they give a nod to such theory, do they not?). But I think, truthfully Mojavean, it is a lost cause. CU knows full well their value would be enhanced by open reporting, and they have consciously chosen, long ago, not to do so. They have variously defended the decision over the years, but I am unaware of them ever wavering. I think nothing short of a flat-out full stakeholder's revolt will force any such change of policy. I hope I'm wrong and if you'd like to direct this particular footsoldier, lemme know how. I'll sign whatever you suggest or write an individual letter if you think it worthwhile. Feel free to contact me offlist if you'd like to strategize. :)

Consumer Reports is simply another alternative source of information. Its greatest weakness is the lack of detail they provide in HOW they arrive at their ratings. They do not reveal the numerical weighting, test subscores, and how item price plays into the final reported numbers. Often missing are details about methods, installation particulars that could affect outcomes, lab environment, ancillary items such as consumable products used in testing, etc. Yes, CR is something less than optimal and as a member I have communicated my displeasure with them about not being more forthcoming with details. On the other hand, Consumer Reports is NOT in any manufacturers pocket, does not accept ad money, buys all of the test items on the open market, and tries, within its budgetary constraints, to test items that people want to know about. The egalitarian necessity of concentrating on mass-market appliance alternatives over custom kitchen high-end gear is apparent when one realizes they can test 5 side by sides for the price of one Sub Zero. Testing 5 side by sides will likely provide useful information for more people than the one Sub Zero they toss in. But as tastes migrate to more expensive gear, CR does try to keep up. In any case, I still use CR all the time and appreciate how handy they can be when it comes time to evaluate a product. I use my phone to look up stuff all the time and I find the results useful far more often than not. But I am a tester and I understand testing methods, including the sometimes frustrating limitations of operational testing, which is what Consumer Reports does. I think they are a good adjunct to have available for consultation when evaluating a purchase, and should be used in concert with other sources, including enthusiast forums like Gardenweb and other internet outlets. I think advice to "avoid" CR is not necessarily the best advice, personally, but suit yourselves in that regard.

I'm in the process of updating our island and for budget reasons we went with Thomasville. I only need 3 cabinets- a trash cabinet, a standard single door cabinet and a 3 drawer pot/pan base. Well the finish was awful. It's a stain finish and it was as if they didn't fully cover the top edge of the drawers and there was something stuck in the clear coat finish on the finished end panel. There was a chip out of the bottom of one drawer and some kind of scratch on another one. We called home depot and they are ordering a new drawer base so that's another 3 week wait time and delay in our project. I hope the next one is acceptable. After we got home and I inspected things further and I thought even the trash bin finish could have been more uniform on the top edge of the pull out, but then I feel like I'm getting picky so I'm accepting it. Fingers crossed it was a fluke.

They aren't very accurate, and don't do their research well. For instance, Whirlpool owns Maytag, Jennair, Kitchenaid, Inglis, etc. And supplies most of the washing machines and standard refregerators to be rebadged into Kenmore. They will rate the exact same model, with different ''name'' badges, differently. Same factory and same innards. Different ratings. Plus they have a bias against appliances that cost more than what they think is average. If two ranges have the same number of service calls, the one that is cheaper, regardless of features, will be scored higher. And they do not differentiate in service call types in their ratings model. Someone not being able to figure out how to get the right program for washing their delicates gets as much weight as catastrophic failure of the mothherboard. So again, biases against technology and higher featured appliances. Not to mention that by the time they are done with their reporting period, 90% of the models that they've tested have been discontinued. Sure there are replacement models, but those will have different components that will render the comparison to previous models moot. It's only helpful if you are searching for used appliances. And very specific models of used appliances. Ask any industry insider, from repairmen to shop owners. They'll tell you the same thing. If you want accurate advice on appliance purchases, those industry insiders are who you should actually listen to. The same is true for whatever component you are buying. Ask the folks who deal with the products day in and day out what they would buy for their own homes.