Just reading the Which? pvr review, updated this month which includes toppy, 
humax, sky, digifusion and thomson among others and they make the Sagems 
Best Buys (scoring just below the toppy). I got the impression (from this 
group and elsewhere) that nobody liked the sagems much?

Somehow the toppy didn't make best buy even though it scored second only to 
the Sky+ boxes. The FVRT200 was not a best buy (citing bad epg) but scored 
higher than the Thomson, even though the Thomson was a best buy. The Humax 
PVR9200T got marked down on ease of use and software problems and even got 
less than the PVR8000T.

The scores are made up of picture quality (30%), sound quality (30%), ease 
of use (20%) and versatility and features (20%).

Does *anyone* agree with these results?

Z

Pyriform wrote:
> Jomtien wrote:
>> Which? have a long habit of comparing apples and pears. They also have
>> some bizarre ideas about what makes an important feature.
> 
> I gave up on Which? many years ago, after reading an article in which 
> they 'measured' the accuracy of scientific calculators (then an exciting 
> new technology) using a methodology so flawed that I was able to use it 
> to demonstrate that all the paper-based trigonometric tables used in 
> schools at the time were completely useless, and should never have been 
> printed. 
> 
> 

I used to trust Which, (for no obvious reason).

But as time went on, and they reviewed items
in areas where I already had some knowledge,
I found that they were appallingly bad EVERY TIME.

This made be extremely suspicious
of their reviews where I didn't have knowlege.

   BugBear

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:20:20 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>
>> 
>
>I used to trust Which, (for no obvious reason).
>
>But as time went on, and they reviewed items
>in areas where I already had some knowledge,
>I found that they were appallingly bad EVERY TIME.
>
>This made be extremely suspicious
>of their reviews where I didn't have knowlege.
>
>   BugBear

Me too - I tried to buy a Toppy from Hughes Direct who offer discounts
to Which members.  Hughes wouldn't play fair so I reported them to
Which who insisted that Hughes must offer their stated 10% discount.
Hughes then reported the Toppy as being permanently out of stock.

Recently Which reviewed DVDs as to their 'scratch resistent'
capability.    Very few of my failed CDs and DVDs to date have been
scratched.  I'm sure most failed due to dye fade.

Several years ago they tested wide screen TVs.  Completely failed to
mention 14:9 mode which was the general standard at the time (some TVs
couldn't handle it).

Recent digital camera tests have overlooked 'noise at low light
levels', the bugbear of all high-megapixel products.

There was some other review recently which criticised an otherwise
good product for not having audio out jacks. On the next page there
was a picture of the rear of that device, and guess what - two sockets
marked 'left', and 'right'.  I have that device and they do work.

In every issue I now look at the stars allocated to products e.g.
'ease of use', 'picture quality' 'sound quality' etc.

If you than look at their weighting chart, e.g.
Picture Quality 50%
Sound Quality 30%
Ease of Use 10% etc.   You will usually find a discrepancy between
overall rating and numbers of stars for several products tested.  They
claim to ignore price, but there must be another factor which is not
explained.

Must cancel my subs.

G.

On 04/09/2007, Graham C wrote in message
:
 
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> 
> >I used to trust Which, (for no obvious reason).
> >
> >But as time went on, and they reviewed items
> >in areas where I already had some knowledge,
> >I found that they were appallingly bad EVERY TIME.
> 
> If you than look at their weighting chart, e.g.
> Picture Quality 50%
> Sound Quality 30%
> Ease of Use 10% etc.   You will usually find a discrepancy between
> overall rating and numbers of stars for several products tested.  They
> claim to ignore price, but there must be another factor which is not
> explained.

And in circumstances like that, you gotta ask yourself if that factor is
kickbacks.

My parents used to subscribe.  Then they cancelled that and got the
occasional issue at library when they were about to buy something.  But
after I grew up I found out that they're tied to a sales outlet and I
could never get rid of the suspicion that they were getting better
purchase prices for the items they gave better reviews to.

Then in the late 1990s they did a review of what was then an emerging
market in dial-up ISPs.  And they gave the best marks and 'Panel's Choice'
to ... one that they had promotional ties with.  For no obvious reason I
could see.  I've never read an issue since.

Simon.
-- 
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

Simon Slavin wrote:
> I found out that they're [WHICH] tied to a sales outlet

Given the (remarkable) range of products
"Which?" reviews, what (by implication single)
sales outlet is it?

   Bugbear

"Graham C"  wrote in message 
news:rskrd3tlfabauv2ouk0fso8t349k46jl3j@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:20:20 +0100, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>
>>I used to trust Which, (for no obvious reason).
>>
>>But as time went on, and they reviewed items
>>in areas where I already had some knowledge,
>>I found that they were appallingly bad EVERY TIME.
>>
>>This made be extremely suspicious
>>of their reviews where I didn't have knowlege.
>>
>>   BugBear
>
> Me too - I tried to buy a Toppy from Hughes Direct who offer discounts
> to Which members.  Hughes wouldn't play fair so I reported them to
> Which who insisted that Hughes must offer their stated 10% discount.
> Hughes then reported the Toppy as being permanently out of stock.
>
> Recently Which reviewed DVDs as to their 'scratch resistent'
> capability.    Very few of my failed CDs and DVDs to date have been
> scratched.  I'm sure most failed due to dye fade.
>
> Several years ago they tested wide screen TVs.  Completely failed to
> mention 14:9 mode which was the general standard at the time (some TVs
> couldn't handle it).
>
> Recent digital camera tests have overlooked 'noise at low light
> levels', the bugbear of all high-megapixel products.
>
> There was some other review recently which criticised an otherwise
> good product for not having audio out jacks. On the next page there
> was a picture of the rear of that device, and guess what - two sockets
> marked 'left', and 'right'.  I have that device and they do work.
>
> In every issue I now look at the stars allocated to products e.g.
> 'ease of use', 'picture quality' 'sound quality' etc.
>
> If you than look at their weighting chart, e.g.
> Picture Quality 50%
> Sound Quality 30%
> Ease of Use 10% etc.   You will usually find a discrepancy between
> overall rating and numbers of stars for several products tested.  They
> claim to ignore price, but there must be another factor which is not
> explained.
>
> Must cancel my subs.
>
> G.

You are so right. I've lost confidence in Which too. Every issue of the 
magazine has obvious errors in it - I've given up emailing the editor about 
them! A couple of months ago there was an article about low energy light 
bulbs but there was enormous discrepancy between the stars, the weighting 
and their eventual best buys. It didn't make sense at all.

V

Victor Delta wrote:
> You are so right. I've lost confidence in Which too. Every issue of the 
> magazine has obvious errors in it - I've given up emailing the editor 
> about them! A couple of months ago there was an article about low energy 
> light bulbs but there was enormous discrepancy between the stars, the 
> weighting and their eventual best buys. It didn't make sense at all.

Consumer magazines should *educate* owners about technology in such a 
way that the *now informed* user can persue specifications and reports 
and make up their *own* minds whether an item is fit for purpose & value 
for money.

Dumbing down choices to a list of five, and having that choice being 
decided by a journalist (or more often a marketeer) is not healthy as it 
eventually skews the UK market supply - GUS, DSG, Kesa & JLP only stock 
the models heavily promoted - and 'tech-enthusiast' products get sold to 
unsuitable owners.

And the more exciting new genre technical stuff created by smaller 
companies stays outside of the UK. Thank heavens for the Internet!

-- 
Adrian C

"Adrian C" <email@here.invalid> wrote in message 
news:5kias3F3hr5lU1@mid.individual.net...
> Consumer magazines should *educate* owners about technology in such a way 
> that the *now informed* user can persue specifications and reports and 
> make up their *own* minds whether an item is fit for purpose & value for 
> money.
> Dumbing down choices to a list of five, and having that choice being 
> decided by a journalist (or more often a marketeer) is not healthy as it 
> eventually skews the UK market supply - GUS, DSG, Kesa & JLP only stock 
> the models heavily promoted - and 'tech-enthusiast' products get sold to 
> unsuitable owners.

I wouldn't mind if their conclusions were at least logical.

V

On 07/09/2007, bugbear wrote in message
:
 
> Simon Slavin wrote:
> > I found out that they're [WHICH] tied to a sales outlet
> 
> Given the (remarkable) range of products
> "Which?" reviews, what (by implication single)
> sales outlet is it?

I deliberately didn't name them since companies have been merged and taken
over many times since then and don't know what they're called now.  There
was a continuous series of reviews where Which would pick a 'Best Buy',
and give the price and where it was available from, and there was a very
restricted list of the suppliers they mentioned.  And the suppliers
inevitably mentioned in their own adverts that that product was Which's
Best Buy.

Things have changed in the last twenty years, with better competition and
more options, and the management of Which may well have changed ideas
since then too.  But at the time the pattern was obvious anyone with a
degree of scepticism.

Simon.
-- 
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message 
news:13dqjc4qmu2af0b@corp.supernews.com...
> Pyriform wrote:
>> Jomtien wrote:
>>> Which? have a long habit of comparing apples and pears. They also have
>>> some bizarre ideas about what makes an important feature.
>>
>> I gave up on Which? many years ago, after reading an article in which 
>> they 'measured' the accuracy of scientific calculators (then an exciting 
>> new technology) using a methodology so flawed that I was able to use it 
>> to demonstrate that all the paper-based trigonometric tables used in 
>> schools at the time were completely useless, and should never have been 
>> printed.
>
> I used to trust Which, (for no obvious reason).
>
> But as time went on, and they reviewed items
> in areas where I already had some knowledge,
> I found that they were appallingly bad EVERY TIME.
>
> This made be extremely suspicious
> of their reviews where I didn't have knowlege.
>
>   BugBear

I haven't seen a Which for years but hasn't it been made obsolete (like 
computer mags) by user reviews on vendor web sites & user group comments.

Peter Munks wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:13dqjc4qmu2af0b@corp.supernews.com...
>> Pyriform wrote:
>>> Jomtien wrote:
>>>> Which? have a long habit of comparing apples and pears. They also
>>>> have some bizarre ideas about what makes an important feature.
>>>
>>> I gave up on Which? many years ago, after reading an article in
>>> which they 'measured' the accuracy of scientific calculators (then
>>> an exciting new technology) using a methodology so flawed that I
>>> was able to use it to demonstrate that all the paper-based
>>> trigonometric tables used in schools at the time were completely
>>> useless, and should never have been printed.
>>
>> I used to trust Which, (for no obvious reason).
>>
>> But as time went on, and they reviewed items
>> in areas where I already had some knowledge,
>> I found that they were appallingly bad EVERY TIME.
>>
>> This made be extremely suspicious
>> of their reviews where I didn't have knowlege.
>>
>>   BugBear
>
> I haven't seen a Which for years but hasn't it been made obsolete
> (like computer mags) by user reviews on vendor web sites & user group
> comments.

The problem with user comments is that most users have not tested every 
product on the market, and are only able to recommend, or not, the products 
they themselves have bought, not compare one product with another. Even when 
genuine users claim to know the best product on the market, many have 
differing opinions so it is necessary for the consumer to choose who to 
believe with no information with which to do so, and who knows whether users 
are paid to give recommendations? Also, some vendor websites do not publish 
negative comments on products, so the user's impression of a product is not 
representative. Added to that is the tendancy of some users to recommend 
what they have bought regardless of any failings, in order to justify buying 
it to themselves.

Although information on which products are the most functional and reliable 
is relatively trivial to provide with enough experience of the products, and 
must surely be valued by most purchasers, manufacturers will always have the 
upper hand. Even if the reviewer for a magazine is honest, and has not been 
given an atypical review unit, and the consumer is patient and diligent 
enough to wait for a review and compare reviewed products on their merits, 
can the reviewer really know when the product will cease to function?

Adrian C wrote:
> Victor Delta wrote:
>> You are so right. I've lost confidence in Which too. Every issue of
>> the magazine has obvious errors in it - I've given up emailing the
>> editor about them! A couple of months ago there was an article about
>> low energy light bulbs but there was enormous discrepancy between
>> the stars, the weighting and their eventual best buys. It didn't
>> make sense at all.
>
> Consumer magazines should *educate* owners about technology in such a
> way that the *now informed* user can persue specifications and reports
> and make up their *own* minds whether an item is fit for purpose &
> value for money.
>

Educating consumers is only useful when the manufacturers' specification 
documents are accurate and comprehensive. How many specifications accurately 
list the real world battery life and power consumption of their products? 
Would I be able to purchase a TV with no overscan, for example, based on 
manufacturers' specifications, and would these be on display in the shop? I 
doubt it.

Christopher Quigley wrote:
> Although information on which products are the most functional and reliable 
> is relatively trivial to provide with enough experience of the products, and 
> must surely be valued by most purchasers, manufacturers will always have the 
> upper hand. Even if the reviewer for a magazine is honest, and has not been 
> given an atypical review unit, and the consumer is patient and diligent 
> enough to wait for a review and compare reviewed products on their merits, 
> can the reviewer really know when the product will cease to function?
> 

On top of which, in very fast moving markets
(e.g. digital TV, cameras) by the time
the (hypothetical) diligent and honest
review has been put together, it's probably
out of date :-(

   BugBear

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:50:05 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>
>
>On top of which, in very fast moving markets
>(e.g. digital TV, cameras) by the time
>the (hypothetical) diligent and honest
>review has been put together, it's probably
>out of date :-(
>
>   BugBear

When I decided to buy a digital camera  around 18 months ago I found
that most of the relevant magazines next to useless.  I was interested
in the Olympus 7070 and 8080, which were unobtainable but continued to
be rated as best buys in the mags for the next six months plus.

I finished up with a NIkon 5400  - it had been around for several
months and was available at a large number of outlets, yet  only
featured in one magazine from some half dozen or so on the shelves.

GrahamC