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 have been reading consumers reports (more or less) since 1972. They tend to put a very high weight on reliability. The luxury appliance brands such as Thermador and Viking often require far more repairs than the mid-range products (I have owned Thermador, a lot of parts broke off that refrigerator). If a high-volume manufacturer made a mid-range product that was unreliable, they would be out of business very quickly due to warranty claims. CU will tend to pick something at the 65th percentile in the market - the product that EVERYBODY is buying and it's successful because the manufacturer gives good value AND MORE SO reliability for money. American brands with a longterm (50-year) reputation for reliability are Kenmore, KitchenAid (=Hobart), and Whirlpool/Maytag (although we just got totally screwed and had to write off a $1300 Maytag over after 2Y which is why I'm on this website tonight.) Ralph Nader is the most senior consumer advocate in Amerca and he killed off the Chevy Corvair which was "Unsafe at Any Speed" with his book, and he probably saved 100k lives, any consumer advocacy organization should be PROUD to have Ralph Nader on their board of directors! CU also has some stupid biases, such as "Subaru always wins our 4WD car tests before we've even bought our cars" and "Camry is the best american midsized car, always has been, always will be." Another is, "Tesla Model 3/Y touch screens are so horrible and impossible to use that nobody could possibly operate a Tesla" (truthfully the touch screen is a revolution allowing Tesla to upgrade the car, fix MANY recalls, and even upgrade performance from 0-60 in 3.5s to 0-60 in 3.2s for my Model 3P+, and they also added Netflix / YouTube / Spotify / Pandora streaming via over-the-air download.) It used to be (early 1970s) that CU would actually publish measured specs of the items they reviewed (SNR, THD, radio sensitivity, etc.). They became intellectually dishonest in mid 1980's by changing to a rating system of "well below", "below", "average", "above average", and "well above average". They did this because were making mistakes and they were getting sued. I repeat: THEY DID THIS TO COVER UP THEIR MISTAKES. They did an absolute hatchet article on Bose Speakers and I heard Amar Bose justifiably complain about CU in a speech at MIT. They don't have guys in labcoats doing tests those are just actors posing for "style" photographs. Bose speakers do not have sound that "wanders about the room". CU's president claimed, "Nobody takes our magazine seriously It's an entertainment magazine!" to Amar Bose! When CU tested bicycles (my area of expertise) they made a truly horrific blunder by not categorizing models into narrow price ranges as it's a get-what-you-pay-for market and the main differentiator is how frameset geometry and wheel/tire choice impact ride comfort and handling. Just about the only CU reports that are intellectually honest these days are the reader surveys because CU is not making any measurements nor are they coming up with magic weighting schemes to over-emphasize subjective usability measures (such as Tesla controls) in the overall "product score". So, rely on them for product / brand reliability, especially among cars!

This is CR's ranking. CU Recommended Hoover Dual V Steam Vac All Terrain w/ Spin Scrub F7452-900 see here $270 CU Recommended Hoover Steam Vac w/Spin Scrub F5914-900 see here $170 CU Best Buy Hoover Platinum Collection Carpet Cleaner F8100-900 see here $400 CU Best Buy Bissell ProHeat 2X Healthy Home 66Q4 see here $300 CU Recommended Bissell ProHeat 2X9200 see here $250 CU Recommended Bissell ProHeat 25A3 see here $150 CU Best Buy Hoover Steam Vac w/Power Brush FH50010 see here $90 CU Best Buy Bissell QuickSteamer 1770 see here $80 Rental carpet-cleaning machines overall score CU Best Buy Rug Doctor Mighty Pro * see here $30

I just got a copy of the August issue that the Oasisowner posted about and it's quite a good article. First of all, it's a 21 page article about how to "Create the Perfect Kitchen For You" - with sections focused on making a plan, defining your style, and choosing your appliances. There is a lot of detailed information and an example kitchen remodel that ended up costing $29,482. A lot of the information in the article was similar to what I've read here on GW. However, with everything that the article covers, it can't really go in depth on any one subject. So, the section on countertops is very brief. There is about a 3 sentence summary of the most used types of countertops, and a ratings table. I'm not sure what rgreen48 was quoting earlier, but here's what the article actually says about soapstone: "Soapstone $50-$100 per sq. ft installed It's not as common as granite—and it's stunning at first. It resists heat damage, and small scratches can be sanded finely, then coated with mineral oil. But it nicks, cuts and scratches easily, and some tough stains won't wash away." That is a pretty brief description and doesn't entirely jive with what I have found out about soapstone, but for a broad audience and giving a brief summary, it's pretty decent. Of course I think people should do more research than reading three sentences before picking a a countertop that they are going to live with for years. I also agree with Oasisowner that the table has some "unusual" ratings. In fine print below the table, they described how they tested the counters: They applied 20 common foods and household products, let them sit overnight before cleaning. Sliced and chopped directly on the counters with chef's knives and serrated knives. Put a pot heated to 400° Ran a weighted sanding block back and forth 25 times. Dropped blunt and pointed objects from 3.5 feet I personally would never cut directly on a countertop, but I can see how some of the other tests would be good at assessing durability.