Slashdot Mirror

The version we're going to get had better be a HUGE improvement over the version that was reviewed below.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/f irst-look-2006-smart-fortwo-406/index.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road- test/budget-cars-12-06/smart-fortwo/1206_car_smart _fortwo.htm?view=Print
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/smart/index. html

It was also the slowest in 0-60 times by FAR out of all the vehicles they tested at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/best-worst -acceleration-4-07/overview/0704_best-worst-accele ration_ov.htm.

The version we're going to get had better be a HUGE improvement over the version that was reviewed below.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/f irst-look-2006-smart-fortwo-406/index.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road- test/budget-cars-12-06/smart-fortwo/1206_car_smart _fortwo.htm?view=Print
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/smart/index. html

It was also the slowest in 0-60 times by FAR out of all the vehicles they tested at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/best-worst -acceleration-4-07/overview/0704_best-worst-accele ration_ov.htm.

The version we're going to get had better be a HUGE improvement over the version that was reviewed below.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/f irst-look-2006-smart-fortwo-406/index.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road- test/budget-cars-12-06/smart-fortwo/1206_car_smart _fortwo.htm?view=Print
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/smart/index. html

It was also the slowest in 0-60 times by FAR out of all the vehicles they tested at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/best-worst -acceleration-4-07/overview/0704_best-worst-accele ration_ov.htm.

The version we're going to get had better be a HUGE improvement over the version that was reviewed below.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/f irst-look-2006-smart-fortwo-406/index.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road- test/budget-cars-12-06/smart-fortwo/1206_car_smart _fortwo.htm?view=Print
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/smart/index. html

It was also the slowest in 0-60 times by FAR out of all the vehicles they tested at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/best-worst -acceleration-4-07/overview/0704_best-worst-accele ration_ov.htm.

I respect expert opinion, but as an engineer I value testing over hearsay.

The biggest problem with their method (buying off the shelf rather than getting product from the manufacturer) is that by the time the testing is complete, you have a great deal of information on last year's model. Good for bargain hunters, but not for those who need to be on the bleeding edge (though I suppose those people don't really care what Consumer Reports says about the product they just have to have today).

Hmm, those are the facts for the 2006 Civic EX sedan, 1.8-liter Four, 5-speed automatic, according to Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/ho nda/civic/model-overview-4748-5732.htm).

If they're wrong you may want to contact them to let them know.

You must be doing mostly highway driving...

The summary that's been posted is also just flamebait. The EPA rating for ALL vehicles are changing for model year 2008 and beyond, not just hybrids. The cars themselves ARE NOT changing. The inherent mileage they get IS NOT changing. Changing the numbers that go on a sticker has NOTHING to do w/cost effectiveness or lack of as the cars HAVE NOT changed.

Consumer Reports has their own mileage testing and found "Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models... The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent."

On my former 02 Nissan Maxima, I've exceeded the highway rating of 20/26 before (from manual calculations, not its 2-4 mpg too high trip computer). However, when I lived in an area where I did lots of shorts drives and city driving, I was mostly in the 16 to 17 mpg range. Example of an above shortfall, 1.8L 06 non-hybrid AT Civic is EPA rated 30/40, 33 combined. CR got *18*/43, 28 combined per http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/hon da/civic/model-overview-4748-5732.htm (you need a subscription to see it).

Why? They use the test procedure below (for 07 model year and earlier) - run it on a dyno (not on a real road) in specific conditions, don't run any accessories and measure carbon in the exhaust and not fuel usage. The figures are then adjusted downward 10% for city and 22% for highway, then that number goes on your sticker. For 2008, they're adding some additional tests that make the numbers more realistic.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s html

This is why Consumer Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) buy everything they review at normal retail outlets. If you don't accept advertising there's nothing the manufacturers can take away from you. Of course the catch is you have to actually have enough subscribers paying the real cost of the magazine to make it work.

I don't think that the economics of publishing are to blame. Poor choices by management seem a more likely scape goat. Take for a counter example consumer reports. Although they are a non-profit, they manage to take no advertising and still fund tests of hundreds of cars every year. I also like that they do not allow products to tout how highly they were rated and they buy products to test anonymously. Surely this model could be applied to get unbiased computer reviews. That is if you don't think that consumer reports' computer reviews are good enough.

I don't think that the economics of publishing are to blame. Poor choices by management seem a more likely scape goat. Take for a counter example consumer reports. Although they are a non-profit, they manage to take no advertising and still fund tests of hundreds of cars every year. I also like that they do not allow products to tout how highly they were rated and they buy products to test anonymously. Surely this model could be applied to get unbiased computer reviews. That is if you don't think that consumer reports' computer reviews are good enough.

For the record, you can see last year's report here: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-com puters/laptop-desktop-computers/laptops-desktops-6 06/tech-support/index.htm?resultPageIndex=1&result Index=4&searchTerm=computer%20tech%20support%20rat ings

You have to be a subscriber to see it, though. In a nutshell, Apple had the best score in every category. They had the best overall ratings by a considerable margin.

Consumer Reports doesn't come to quite the same conclusion.

First off, they've received a lot of unusable 3rd party cartridges:
    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-com puters/printers/printer-inks-7-06/off-brand-inks/0 607_printer-inks_off-brand-inks.htm?resultPageInde x=1&resultIndex=2&searchTerm=printer%20cartridge

And here, their recommendation is that the replacement inks are not quite as thrifty as they appear:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-com puters/printers/printer-inks-7-06/overview/0607_pr inter-inks_ov.htm

My experience is that I bought cheap replacement ink for a Canon printer, and it clogged the print heads, didn't last as long, and produced poor quality color. I ended up throwing them out. Instead, I shop at the warehouse clubs where you can typically save 33-50% on name brand inks.

I prefer Canon because it allows you to replace individual ink tanks (which can be slightly thrifter). HP tends to do all-in-ones, which is bad if they mix Black, since you'll go through black 2-3x as fast. Overall, HP's tend to be expensive to run for that reason. In fact, with HP's your best bet is to wait until the computer stores sell new HP printers for $15 after rebate, use up the ink and then throw away the printer. It feels terribly wasteful to do that, but the ink is so expensive for HP's that it's really the most economical way to own them.

Epson is worse, mainly because the ones I've owned tended to clog their print heads if you let them sit for more than a week or two. Then you run 2-3 cleaning cycles which used up the ink even faster. Back in the day of tractor feeds and impact printers, the joke was "Epson" was a Japanese word that meant "Paper Jam". I hope they've fixed that.

Consumer Reports doesn't come to quite the same conclusion.

First off, they've received a lot of unusable 3rd party cartridges:
    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-com puters/printers/printer-inks-7-06/off-brand-inks/0 607_printer-inks_off-brand-inks.htm?resultPageInde x=1&resultIndex=2&searchTerm=printer%20cartridge

And here, their recommendation is that the replacement inks are not quite as thrifty as they appear:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-com puters/printers/printer-inks-7-06/overview/0607_pr inter-inks_ov.htm

My experience is that I bought cheap replacement ink for a Canon printer, and it clogged the print heads, didn't last as long, and produced poor quality color. I ended up throwing them out. Instead, I shop at the warehouse clubs where you can typically save 33-50% on name brand inks.

I prefer Canon because it allows you to replace individual ink tanks (which can be slightly thrifter). HP tends to do all-in-ones, which is bad if they mix Black, since you'll go through black 2-3x as fast. Overall, HP's tend to be expensive to run for that reason. In fact, with HP's your best bet is to wait until the computer stores sell new HP printers for $15 after rebate, use up the ink and then throw away the printer. It feels terribly wasteful to do that, but the ink is so expensive for HP's that it's really the most economical way to own them.

Epson is worse, mainly because the ones I've owned tended to clog their print heads if you let them sit for more than a week or two. Then you run 2-3 cleaning cycles which used up the ink even faster. Back in the day of tractor feeds and impact printers, the joke was "Epson" was a Japanese word that meant "Paper Jam". I hope they've fixed that.

A Prius starts at around $22K. What kind of new car can you buy for ~$7500? Will it have all the features that are in the $22K Prius? Will it be a deathtrap compared to a Prius? You do realize that there still is a tax credit for Priuses of $787.50 per http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157557,0 0.html and http://www.aceee.org/transportation/hybtaxcred.htm #table. It was $1575 before 3/31/07 and before that it was $3150.

As for "35 mpg" cheap city car, what mileage #s are you quoting? The current EPA mileage estimates are quite overinflated, esp. city. For example, when Consumer Reports tested an 06 Civic EX w/1.8L 4 and 5 speed auto, they got 18 city, 43 highway for an overall mileage of 28 mpg. They hybrid version got 26 city, 47 highway, 37 overall. You can see a list of vehicles w/top gas mileage at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/buyingleas ing/most-fuelefficient-cars-206/index.htm. The only one that even gets 35 city is the Prius. The next best get 28 or 26 mpg city. The Yaris is a crap car and the Honda Fit is very slow (even slower than a Prius).

Consumer Reports found a shortfall in mileage for 90% of the vehicles they tested http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.aspx?contentid=4 023460.

The regenerative braking really cuts down on brake wear. If you're light on the brakes, you're doing regen almost the whole time until you're down below ~5 mph when the Prius switches to friction brakes. There are documented cases where Prius owners are still on the original pads after 100K miles. That's a pretty significant cost savings in itself.

There are a few things that probably need to change to make this work. First off, there's a macho intertwining of cars with manhood, power etc.

Sorry, but the macho-persona being responsible for selling cars in this day and age is not true. This may have been true in the 50s, 60s, and 70s but not since then.

I think the following quote sums it up nicely:
"I needed something larger for the kids and all the sports equipment and friends they want me to haul around," Freed said. "It also feels safer to be in a bigger car. And driving an SUV makes me feel less x like a taxi driver for the kids and more like I'm driving for my own pleasure."
From this article.

Notice how SUV commercials predominantly feature female drivers, that appear to be the ideal middle-aged mother?

Anyone else recall that recent commercial where the mother goes shopping with her son and the son chooses to run off and hold another Mother's hand as a result of her failure to purchase the safest SUV?

Moreover, Consumer Reports scores the Prius "Excellent" on reliability, and scores the Hummer H2 and H3 "Poor." If the Dust to Dust report includes cost of parts and repairs over the lifetime of both, it doesn't say so. It would be quite strange if any car made in the last few years was only forecast to last 100,000 miles. I wonder where that number originates.

The amount of stuff being produced these days for a consumer would easily overwhelm a consumer with even above-average patience and attention span. This is true in not just music, but in many other sectors/industries (cars, home electronics are other examples).

So, somebody needs to be the "gatekeepers" — we are happy to employ them to avoid missing on the good new stuff while not spending all our time weeding out the bad new stuff. The question is only, who should that be.

In medicines, which we deemed to be too important, we have FDA — a government agency. In everything else there are competing outlets, some of them commercial (think CNet), some not (think Consumer Reports).

The following is a simple truism, but it is needed to counter the article's implicit disapproval: Apple got there, because consumers of music like the work, Apple's experts are doing.

Maybe, it is the dissatisfaction with radio jockeys (think "Payola"), or with MTV, who, presumably, are losing their music gatekeeping role to Apple — I don't know. But should Apple become thought of as abusive of its position, people will switch to others — competition, as is often said, is only a click away.

The brand repeatedly scores at or near the top in tech support and has been reliable. Our most recent survey of desktop computer users, in fact, rated Apple more than 20 points ahead of all the other computer manufacturers for technical support.

In addition, their detailed subscriber listings consistently show Macs toward or at the top of the scale for reliability in terms of both desktops and laptops. They don't make complete methodology available, so this isn't exactly the gold standard for consumer research, but it's as close as one gets to hard numbers.

Would such a consumers' union evaluate products and services and produce consumer reports for the benefit of its members?

For IT-related stuff, it's Google or your favorite industry-specific newsgroups.

For general "gadget" related items, I typically check out The Gadgeteer first, then Google.

For digital cameras, it's Steve's Digicams all the way, then Google.

For cars, it's AutoTrend or Consumer Reports Autos, then Google.

For general household stuff, it's Consumer Reports, then Google.

And in pretty much every case, I check Google.

For IT-related stuff, it's Google or your favorite industry-specific newsgroups.

For general "gadget" related items, I typically check out The Gadgeteer first, then Google.

For digital cameras, it's Steve's Digicams all the way, then Google.

For cars, it's AutoTrend or Consumer Reports Autos, then Google.

For general household stuff, it's Consumer Reports, then Google.

And in pretty much every case, I check Google.

The only ethical reviewing is done by a system such as Consumer Reports uses. They pay full price retail at a random store for the product under review, then conduct extensive real-world tests, and they also do not accept ads for their magazine or website. This applies to released products. That some game or software or entertainment companies do the opposite, just give away stuff, doesn't matter, it is still completely sleazy from sleazy people then and unethical as all get out and you won't get an honest opinion, it is tainted, or has a high probability of being tainted. This is similar to scientific peer review, they have to be scrupulous to disclose industry ties/conflicts, and that's because the community recognizes that the potential for bias is there.

    Unreleased products where they can be considered betas, no problem getting a sample loaner model, I have done it myself in a biz I was in before, critiquing proposed products. But, no money was received, nor were any products transferred for ownership, just a normal review process that both the product and the written review went back only to the manufacturer and wasn't for publication.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/ health-care/hmos-vs-ppos-905/overview/index.htm

- OP AC

Consumer Reports surveyed roughly 35,000 readers about their HMOs and PPOs. Among our findings:

• HMOs scored slightly higher in overall satisfaction than PPOs, which dovetails with other research that finds many consumers somewhat more willing to give up choice of provider to get lower costs.
• People in HMOs had more trouble obtaining care than members of PPOs.
• Nearly one-third of all PPO members reported billing problems, nearly three times the rate for people in HMOs.
• There was no difference between HMOs and PPOs in levels of satisfaction among those with chronic conditions, except for people with back pain. Those patients were happier with PPOs.
• Our Ratings of 76 HMOs and PPOs show that the best plans provide a broader choice of doctors and easier access to care.

They are independent, non-profit, don't accept advertising, etc., etc. Your subscription may be tax-deductable, but consult your beancounter.

Tyson Foods, inc is not a "poultry farmer". They are an industrial chicken producer. No self-respecting american would work in such an environment, thus Tyson has to import illegal immigrants to keep their operations profitable.

Chickens with reasonable living accomodations and an environment free of dioxin contamination simply don't get bird flu.

Arsenic in chicken feed also likely causes (subtle?) health problems... "But the lack of arsenic in organic chickens is suggestive: USDA standards do not allow arsenic in organic-chicken feed."

Consumer Reports recently had an article on backup solutions, and they are recommending easy-to-use external drive systems.

But then people, like the moderator, thought "Irradiation = Nuk-u-lar = glow-in-the-dark = CANCER!" and the practice stopped.

Perhaps a few people thought that. Others considered that exposing food to ionizing radiation destroys part of its nutritional value, produces chemical by-products of questionable safety, and is a strategy used to promote the long-distance transport of food over locally-grown produce, and came to the conclusion that it's a stupid idea.

I suggest this Consumer's Union article.

Guarantee that whomever CR picks is going to parade that around regardless of their stance before testing occurs.

Consumer Reports does not take kindly to companies using their name in advertisements:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/adviola tion/index.htm

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports shares this helpful information. And Consumer Reports put out this article in 2005.

Consumer Reports has a section at the back of the magazine called "Selling It", where they show huge mistakes in advertising. Horrible spelling errors, logical WTFs, and just plain BAD ideas like EneMan -- the enema superhero -- that somehow made it to market, actually onto shelves. They also had a Golden Cocoon award for overpackaging, which popped up every now and then in Selling It.

Unfortunately, I can't find any examples online, but I'm sure at least some of you know what I mean.

Consumer Reports reviewed phones, including this very feature, a couple months ago. http://www.consumerreports.org./ I think a subscription is required for that article, but it's only ~$25.

    Accepting merchandise-even to use-opens one to the bribery effect. Accepting merchandise-even just to "review" -means that yes indeed you can get a cherry picked tweaked pristine example of the article in question.

It is just common sense bad mojo to accept stuff directly from the manufacturers for this sort of work.

Just a clarification, Consumer Reports is a non-profit organization and relies on donations for funding as well as private individuals to supply them with products ( http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/test.ht m ). Please check your facts before making public statements. To say, "they can AFFORD to do that" is a bit of a stretch. It would be better to say that they do not rely on vendor supplied samples and purchase or receive products from private citizens, but to use a blanket statement saying they can afford it is untrue. They are dirt poor just like the Tom's Hardware and Anandtech folks, the only difference is they have a higher ethical standard (relating to consumer expectations of retail supplied products) and do not rely on vendor donated products to test.

I will say your other comments are spot on. Vendors of any product are notorious for supplying product samples for review that are certainly a pinnacle of quality control that the average consumer will not find off the shelf (or lot, or whatever).

"Why there is no decent consumer organization in the US is a mystery to me. And by 'decent' I don't mean another corp that makes profit by 'certifying' other corps 'consumer friendly'. I mean an organization of consumers. Big enough to raise a stink about a monopoly being abused. Big enough to scare the politicians. Big enough to organize a meaningful economic boycott."

Sure there is. Take a look at Consumers Union, publishers of the great "Consumer Reports" magazine. While you're at it, become involved by subscribing to their magazine. (The product reports alone are worth it.) Consumers Union does lobby the government to make products safer and also brings attention to products that simply don't work. Plus, they are non-profit and buy all products (including the cars they review!) at retail.

"This is the first time I've heard of TVs having this type of issue. How safe are LCD and DLP TVs from this type of thing?"

The source of the problem are fluorescent lights that Philips built into these sets to illuminate the wall behind the display. There is a fix: turn the bulbs off.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-com puters/philips-plasma-tvs-recalled-306.htm

"The recall includes sets with "Ambilight," or ambient light technology that projects a soft glow onto the wall behind the set, to create atmosphere and an enhanced viewing experience, according to the company. If owners turn off the Ambilight feature, the hazard is eliminated."

On the annual All New 2005 Buying Guide of Consumer Reports page 329, Apple does the best for again in desktop and laptops in realibity. The metric used was Inoperable Failure and Broken But Still Operable. Which Apple scored well in both.

In the current Best Buys for 2006 Buying Guide of Consumer Reports page 233 (survery sample of 140,000 readers with desktop and laptops) , the graph shows Apple with the fewest repairs for Desktop and second fewest in laptops. Only beat out by Toshiba in the laptop category which sounds about right. I strongly recommend most Apple laptops to our department folks and IBM or Toshiba laptops if they have to use a Windows laptop. I urge most people to avoid Dell if possible, or opt to buy the Latitude if they have to get Dell. A few years ago Dell made decent machines, but now their quality of their computers has gone down the tubes and their support is abysmal. We've had too many horror stories and lots of angry people in our department recently with Dell.

I struggeled with the same issues for quite some time. I never in the past was a very good giver, nobody really taught me to be one.

As for Jesus, well, there are as many different opinions of Jesus out there as there are different churches. Most churches just don't get Jesus (nor do they give Jesus). Any church that teaches that Jesus demands complete control over one's life is Christian only in name.

As for Bill Gates, I agree that credit should be given where credit is due. Any improvement should be recognized however minor. However, Robin Hood worked for a band of brigands and robbers, but two wrongs do not a right make. True charity proceeds from a system of repentance from sin and making reparation for sins by ones own life example. To often it seems people look at charity as a publicity event in a system where it buys one the licence to continue down paths of sin. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" is the phrase that comes to mind as many Protestants tend to build thier own faith systems by pulling from Paul outside of consideration of the context of the fullness of the faith.

As to finding a charity to give to, that can require some research. Here is an article you might find usefull in that regard: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/personal-financ e/charity-watchdogs-1205.htm

Personally, I contribute mostly to Catholic Relief Services -- they are the Catholic Church's version of the International Red Cross, except that I know CRS does some very good work with little to no waste in overhead.

Not unusual at all.

If you look around, there's a lot of charaties that perform similar functions. Sometimes they target the same demographic group, sometimes they are bound by the same activity, sometimes they are tied to the same organization.

For example, there's more than one charity that caters to childern in hospitals. Toys for Tots, Child's Play, Get Well Gamers, Candlelight Foundation, Make A Wish Foundation, and The Shriner's Organization. Apologies to those I've missed, as I can not even begin to list them all.

There's more than one charity that appeals to a particular activity. Runners can attest to every race being tied to one charity or another, the organization coordinating the race basically survives and coordinates the race by taking a small cut from the charity proceeds. It's not illegal or unethical, as few runners will pony up charity money un-prompted but most will not gripe about an entrance fee if a portion is going to promote public goodwill. Bingo is a simliar activity driven revenue source for charities, with bingo parlors happily donating a protion of the earnings to charaties to offset ill will towards gambling in the community, and the players love it as they can soothe their losses by knowing that some of the money went to a good cause. I know of bingo parlors in Texas where every game donates to a different charity.

Organizations are another binding agent in the distribution of charity money. If you donate to your alma mater or local college / university, you often can put stipulations on the donation which effictvely makes the organization a multi-charity. One example is to specify that the dontated money is to only be spent on the library, or the departement of Biology, etc. The US Goverment also accepts charity money under such circumstances, and have a departement to distribute charity funds to the correct recipients. I have known a few people who have placed clauses in their wills to have their assets forwarded to paying off the national debt.

So it's not a great travisty to have identical, or near-identical charities competeing in their various arenas. Without competition, even in charaties, they would soon fall prey to the problems inherit with any monopoly. For charaties, that would spell beaurocratic processes for donation, department-based "kingdom building", excessive administration, and less of the donation arriving to its intended recipient.

Be glad you have a choice, one day you may find that a charity is very inefficent in distributing funds, and you might consider changing charities to another that still fulfills your wishes, but is ran by someone else. Consumer reports did a published study of charity comparison, and it was shocking to see how some squandered over 60% of the funds in (mis-)management of the distribution of such funds.

There's an excellent description of the problem at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/personal-financ e/charity-watchdogs-1205.htm

And if you want to donate, http://www.charitywatch.org/ is useful in separating out the dogs from the winners.

It's no wonder you wrote your comment anonymously. http://www.aaafoundation.org/multimedia/index.cfm? button=disdrv and http://www.aaafoundation.org/multimedia/index.cfm? button=distractII

Also, from http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/consumer-protec tion/cell-phones-and-driver-distraction-202/overvi ew.htm "It's conversation that drives this effect. When you're talking, you're impaired. ..There was no discernible difference between talking while holding a cell phone and using a hands-free phone." Note: the article implies a comparison to 'light' passenger conversation, that cell phone use is more distracting. The largest distractions in cell phone use is dialing.

End of the story? my ass. While it may be true in the majority of cases on a conversation by conversation basis, that does not make it true for every case. Also, unless you spend the entire drive on a cell phone, the duration of distraction is much greater for passengers (see first two links above). Being distracted and wrecking your car is not a new phenomena that began with cell phones.

Yes, that's right, if you want unbiased reporting on the facts and a strict comparison done under rigorous conditions, then the only place to turn is Consumer Reports. Unfortunately a peek at their site shows nothing about comparing Linux to Windows. Anyone for a letter-writing campaign?

How about Consumer Reports?

Let's end the debate once and for all and lobby Consumer Reports to evaluate electronic voting machines. Following is a link to their feedback form.
http://custhelp.consumerreports.org/cgi-bin/consum erreports.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?

Can you say "bribe"?

That's why Consumer's Union buys their products at retail.

No ads, no problem:

http://www.consumerreports.org/

It is hard to expect a site selling products to host honest reviews & comments of those products. There are shills everywhere, you are right. And don't forget the possibility that people are writing negative reviews of competitors products. I doubt NewEgg is very different from any other site. DPReview seemed to be a very good when I was buying a digital camera a few years ago. But who knows...

Sites like consumerreports.org are more independent. But it would be nice to have an independent site with moderated user comments (ala slashdot) to help filter out the shills.

Beyond that, you have to just go with word of mouth. If your friend bought it and it was good then you might buy it too.

Word of mouth hasn't stopped UHaul from remaining in business though.

I have a hard time finding fair, accurate reviews regardless of whether the reviews are written by staff or by consumers. There is a very real conflict of interest for sites that depend on manufactures for advertising dollars and testing samples. On the by-consumer side, you have to filter out shills and zealots (pick your favorite site and check out the consumer reviews of Quicken and Microsoft Money... it's like a holy war).

That said, I've been very happy with consumer reports. They only review items that they purchase themselves (i.e. no 'freebies' or higher-quality items specifically earmarked for product reviews). Furthermore, they accept no advertising and get all their revenue from subscriptions. These two factors take away much of the conflict of interest and/or bias issues that can plague other review sites.

Downsides? Cost (not necessarily expensive imho, but still a tough sell to people who expect everything online to be free). It's also doesnt work with early adopters because they wont review items before they available for purchase. Finally, though they've been getting a bit more 'hip' lately when it comes to technology I doubt your going to find an exhaustive video card shoot-out anytime soon.

What I'd really like to see is a site (or magazine) that can does a decent video game review. They seem to be either clearly biased, drip with ego and/or condescention, but usually they are just TOO LONG. Why is it Ebert can give a fair review of "Mullholland Drive" on a quarter-page of the chicago sun-times, but nobody can seem to encapsulate "Mario Tennis" in under 5 printed pages??