[ChrisMarshallNY]

They are also incorruptible.

If they give your product good marks, you are not allowed to mention it in your marketing (Not sure how they enforce it; maybe they stop reviewing your stuff).

I worked at a company that regularly got top marks from them, and our Marketing folks would have fits, because they couldn't mention it.

[alamortsubite]

Sounds great, but Consumer Reports definitely has a checkered past. Read about the Suzuki Samurai debacle, in which they methodically manipulated their tests (strictly for that vehicle, and not any of the others in its class that they were simultaneously evaluating), with the goal of destroying the vehicle's reputation.

https://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-a-black-eye-for-co...

[mapt]

I'm not sure what the point is of linking to a reference that also features pieces titled:

'The media lied to you about COVID-19 – TAKE ACTION NOW'

'Critical Race Theory in schools, take action now!'

'Gender activists are politicizing the dictionary: TAKE ACTION NOW'

'Stand up for Rush – TAKE ACTION NOW'

'VOX buries the truth'

'CNN admits Hunter Biden ‘a real problem’ for Joe Biden, not ‘a right-wing media story’'

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Accuracy_in_Media

I am less confident about either your contention or about the position you are attacking than about the idea that this particular website is going to lie to me about it.

[midoridensha]

Why does anyone need to stand up for Rush? It was a great band and not really controversial, plus they disbanded years ago because the drummer died. They don't exist any more, just like Led Zeppelin no longer really exists (also because the drummer died, coincidentally).

[AlchemistCamp]

Just four days ago they played at Red Rocks with Matt Stone on drums for South Park's 25th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lel5JGJfwqQ

RIP Neil Peart

[midoridensha]

That's not really Rush, just like the surviving Led Zeppelin players playing a concert with Jason Bonham isn't really LZ. The guest drummer isn't an official band member in either case, just a guest musician. The band itself just doesn't exist; now it's "the surviving members of band X". Pink Floyd is the same way; they disbanded after their keyboardist died.

[dreamcompiler]

Spock: Captain we need to send down a landing party to investigate the radiation leak.

Kirk: Send some red shirts.

Spock: They're all in Agile training today.

Kirk: Do we have any rock drummers?

[chiefalchemist]

She's Buying the Stairway to Heaven TAKE ACTION NOW

[justin66]

Led Zeppelin should reunite with the deceased drummer’s son playing drums - TAKE ACTION NOW

[dctoedt]

> Led Zeppelin should reunite with the deceased drummer’s son playing drums

That's kind of how it worked when Zep was one of the recipients of the Kennedy Center Honors a few years back, with Ann and Nancy Wilson + Jason Bonham, son of John, + others doing Stairway to Heaven.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFxOaDeJmXk

[ConceptJunkie]

Jason Bonham made a couple of fun records in late 80s/early 90s with his group "Bonham". I'd be up for seeing a reunion.

[philwelch]

It was ridiculous how long it took for them to be enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but that finally happened a few years back.

[midoridensha]

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a complete joke, and has nothing to do with real Rock and Roll music. They regularly induct musicians and performers who have absolutely nothing to do with Rock. It's best to just ignore the whole institution.

[sideshowb]

That was a bizarre gardening accident.

[tablespoon]

Who cares, it's easy? I did my part: I just stood up and went to the bathroom.

[switchbak]

I'm still not sure why I'm standing up for Rush, I don't even like the band, but I took action. Immediately!

[ConceptJunkie]

Hey, I love Rush! "Hemispheres" is my favorite album by them!

[dijonman2]

All sound like accurate headlines in today’s political landscape.

[safety1st]

So the website also publishes right wing propaganda. Does that invalidate the claims in the article he linked? Did you read the article before formulating your opinion?

This is basic critical thinking, you don't have to be as shallow as many readers of that website probably are, you're just choosing to be.

[mapt]

If somebody writes for you a long piece featuring many pages of text and references, quoting lawsuits and making numerous reasonable-seeming inferences throughout...

The opportunity they have to lie to somebody who is unfamiliar with the subject is immense. Falsehood could be hiding in any of a thousand places, and it could easily require you to hire a team of experts for weeks to find it and conclusively debunk it, line by line. It may well require decompiling what is functionally or literally the source code behind the piece to dismiss one's suspicions. "Basic critical thinking" is not trivial against a determined adversary.

Whether to take the claims within on face value depends on your purpose and on what you know of the writer. In this case, it is very easy to become quite familiar with this motivation and ethics of the writer in under a minute by clicking around the website, and come to the reasonable conclusion that this is a place that generally attempts to deceive their reader to secure material gain for their patrons & movement, and there are likely deliberate lies somewhere in the body of the piece. You don't even need to read the body.

[rsynnott]

In general, if someone cites a wacky propaganda website as evidence for something, I'm going to assume that they're doing this because there's no proper evidence. I suppose occasionally this isn't the case, and they've just made a bizarre choice on what to link, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Indeed, the real story would appear to be rather more nuanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Motor_Corp._v._Consumer....

[emsixteen]

Are you really wondering why someone is skeptical of an article on a website which is already clearly willing to publish falsehoods?

[headsoup]

Sure it's stupidly sensationalized, but most of those statements listed are true.

[Jerrrry]

All of those are objectively true.

Please list one of those that are false, so you can be educated.

[eesmith]

> that gets little media attention

It did not get little media attention. Indeed, the lawsuit got rather a lot.

> AIM has submitted an amicus brief in the case, arguing that Suzuki should be allowed to present its evidence to a jury. It is hard to understand how any judge could honestly rule that the evidence in this case does not prove that the defendant knew that its claim that the Samurai “rolled over easily” was false.

The source definitely has a dog in this hunt.

Who are we to believe, a partisan in the lawsuit, or the trial judge? And why?

It's very likely that AIM's goal is to present the best facts in their argument, and ignore or minimize other factors. Or as CU put it (quoting https://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970422/pres... ): "First it was the cigarette makers, now it's an automobile manufacturer. Different industries, same desperate tactics. Throw up a smoke screen, hurl ludicrous charges, and falsely claim (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that their product is safe -- all to avoid liability for defective and dangerous products." ...

> "We welcome and invite NHTSA to evaluate our honesty and integrity. Courts have done so and found unanimously that our methodology was beyond reproach. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York -- one of the nation's most highly respected courts -- has said that our work 'exemplifies the very highest order of responsible journalism.'"" ...

> "On the other hand, Dr. Pittle said, in a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review, a Federal Court of Appeals stated that Suzuki and its attorneys "engaged in an unrelenting campaign to obfuscate the truth."

> "The truth that was revealed despite Suzuki's cover-up is that Suzuki knew -- prior to first selling the car in the U.S. -- that the vehicle had a 'rollover problem' and that General Motors refused to sell the car because its evaluation demonstrated the danger of rollover," Dr. Pittle said.

Do you really expect HN readers to act like trial court judges and decide which of these two partisans are correct, and dig through decades old material to offer a point-by-point rebuttal?

If the evidence is so clear-cut, why did Suzuki and CU end up with a rather mundane settlement?

[groby_b]

Basic critical thinking is "if the publication lies in every other article, the expected value of this one additional article is close to zero".

Critical thinking does not require you to carefully parse every bit of garbage on the planet.

[hn_go_brrrrr]

I hadn't heard about this, thanks for the link. I did a little digging and it doesn't appear be quite as clean cut as that article says. For instance, check out https://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970422/pres... (a CR press release), where they mention internal Suzuki documents acknowledging the rollover issue.

[alamortsubite]

I've read the text of the lawsuit. As you mention, this is a press release, so I'm highly skeptical of it. Video documentation of CR's manipulation of the tests is on YouTube. It's wild stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Bv9WL3vpY

[hn_go_brrrrr]

Best guess? CR fabricated their test results because they couldn't figure out how to replicate the real-life problems on their test course. Which is to say, both sides are in the wrong.

[delusional]

Every review site "fabricates their test reults" thats the whole point. You create a test that documents your assistent.

The ruling on an appeal makes the argument better than i could.

> [The] først theory is that CU know it was probably lying because its employees tries to make the samurai flip and we're happy when they suceeded. The second is that CU purposely avoided the truth by failing to address a potential source of experimental error. Neither of these theories withstands serious scrutiny

The opinion end up concluding that the entire reason for changing the test setup, along with a description of the changes, was present in the article.

What a non-story.

[Spooky23]

I think Consumer Reports has an opinionated editorial voice. But I think that’s inevitable in that line of work.

SUVs evolved to address the risks pointed out by CR and other entities. They mostly have wider wheelbases and lower centers of gravity.

[crotchrocketeer]

Well, at least this wasn’t in the “pretend it’s better direction” so it’s a at least still reliable in helping pick good quality.

[alamortsubite]

Not if you were trying to decide between the Samurai and the other vehicles CR was "evaluating" (a Wrangler and the Bronco II). Internally, CR's testers praised the Samurai as having the best handling of the bunch, but their editor made sure the public never heard this.

[delusional]

What are you talking about? The original review literally mentioned: "Under the touch of our drivers, all four utility vehicles got through the course at 52 mph or better. The Suzuki Samurai was actually more maneuverable than the others, since it's so much smaller and lighter"

Tell me again how it was some cover up. They literally published your argument along with the review.

[TheRealDunkirk]

They might be ethical, but they don't "live" with appliances to really figure out what they're dealing with, either. I used Consumer Reports' recommendation to buy a full set of appliances for a new house about 18 years ago. I bought "GE Gold" washer, dryer, fridge, stove, microwave, and dishwasher.

Within 2 years, every single one had failures. For instance, the oven's convection fan failed in a month. The washer AND dryer completely failed within 3 years. I bought refurbished units from a local guy, and when I told him what I had, he didn't even want them to flip again.

I, too, resigned myself to the fact that, unless you pay for commercial-grade appliances, it's all crap, and you may as well just buy the cheapest thing at Lowe's, and replace it when it fails. The industry deserves all the loss of trust they have earned.

[grepfru_it]

I’ve had great success with them, my vacuum is going strong after 13+ years, washer and dryer great after 9 years. But I’m still harboring negative feelings about their car reviews. They marked the 2013 Ford Edge as a great vehicle with minimal flaws, but when they reviewed the 2014 Ford Edge they found an array of problems and lowered the score. While I was researching and shopping for my Ford Edge I found the 2013 and 2014 were exactly the same cars. I think they enhanced the weld points for ANCHOR points to support 60lbs instead of 45lbs, but that was the extent of changes.. small and incremental. Yet CR faulted them for excess road noise, stiff suspension, and reliability. I test drove both mode years and they both performed and sounded exactly the same. Major parts including suspension were interchangeable as well. We went with the 2013 to save money before the CR reviews for 2014 came out. It made me realize their reviews are not consistent, especially when Tesla Model S went from having top marks to all of a sudden being scored very low. These are not cars that drastically changed between the years, so just buyer beware YMMV

FWIW, I do love my Ford Edge and it is still the daily driver for our household

[Tagbert]

You do need to distinguish between their reviews (which are done by CR internal people and reflect their values and judgement) and the ratings which are done by surveying CR subscribers who are owners of the products.

[tomohawk]

I'm a member of CR, but they obviously have their biases and blind spots.

Sometimes they start with a premise they want to prove instead of just providing a straight review of the products. They may do this by selecting the criteria (key performance metrics), for example.

Sometimes, they just don't competently evaluate the products because they fail to take into account real world consumer needs.

The quality of reviews in CR these days doesn't hold a candle to what CR used to provide, but I remain a member because even a weak signal is better than the other random stuff out there like Amazon reviews.

[nobodyofnote]

They actually do allow you to mention it in marketing; I've worked with them for a consumer product. What you can't do is use it in "paid" marketing.

Emails, social media posts, website landing pages, collateral in-store/retail is all fully acceptable. You can also pay additional fees to them for additional materials to use in communications.

[pandaman]

It is apparently allowed to put a link to the review, saying "Check out how CR reviewed us" e.g. https://www.lg.com/us/laundry