It is a Kenmore/Whirlpool. It has a solid state control panel that was (gently put) problematic. (Less gently, a poorly engineered pizzacrap.) I am not sure how CR testing could have seen this coming as it has taken years for people to realize what a pizzacrap it really is and the large pool of machines that are covered by that hard fact! (You can do a search if you are curious.)

Noteworthy NOW at this late date is that most every dryer (not in the pricing stratosphere) has MOSTLY MECHANICAL controls. I kid you not, I have seen a hundred or more dryers 800 dollars and below and NONE had a single integrated control panel (one piece) like those multitude of machines that were produced for 3-4 years. No shorter-term testing would point that out, and CR could not be blamed for that. SO the tyranny of the masses still has a VALUE, but not so much in immediate purchase feedback. I have had people giving top ratings to durable goods when they had them LESS THAN A WEEK!

Ummm, thanks but no, you can’t tell me what a terrific vacuum a certain model is in one week without qualifying it by saying “Of course in a month I may think it is a pizzacrap when it stops working 3 times and breaks the belt twice.”

But, the ratings are still compiled, say on Amazon, as if this review of a “real user” is an across the board endorsement, “Hey, these people think it deserves 5 stars!” This info in valid, but most so when combined with a more methodical approach like testing something to the point of failure, which, honestly, I ain’t doing, at least not on purpose (lol).

That is what CA does and I appreciate getting both opinions. Even the historical reliability rating help, but cannot be counted on as the last word. The company that got low marks last year, may have been absorbed by a BETTER QUALITY competitor and now be making products of increased quality! (Let me have my DREAM, you jackals!)

For what it’s worth, and I swear on a stack of woodworking magazines that I’m not a shill from CR but a chemist, the testing they do is first rate. Their experimental procedures and attention to detail is impressive. Remember, though, that there’s aways a critic, no matter what you do.

>> We also verify that no one is stuffing the ballot box with multiple questionnaires. >> In contrast, user reviews ARE self-selecting and tend to reflect extremes on the >> satisfaction scale—and you don’t always know whether the writer is an actual
>> consumer or a company shill. But those reviews are an increasingly relevant leg
>> on the stool, which is why we’re looking to grow them on our site, with the above >> caveats

Try searching for the product with the work sucks in the form of a phrase such as:

the dremel tool sucks, Craftsman sucks, lowes sucks, toolmonger sucks

You can probably find someone using that phrase for even the best products out there but the real score here is that it filters out the dozens of portal sites that come up with you try and find ratings and reviews.
You know, the ones that just have reviews of the web store selling the product.
And obviously if you find lots and lots of people complaining about your product that’s gotta tell you something.

Which proves what? Nothing… it merely means that the full scoring strategy is not printed and that your attempt to “decode” it was a failure. They do not print the full scoring methodology or break it out on individual products. The bubbles are not meant to be a hard and fast number, but a general indicator of how a product performed in that area. One “excellent” is not equivalent to another “excellent”.

@Jim German:

Given, it’s a duh, but what other publications or review sites do anything even close? The real issue is that by the time the 3 years are done and the report is published you have no way of getting the exact formulation that was tested… and from looking at year-to-year tests, it’s pretty common that a paint/stain that rated top one year will be average or even below average the next. Some are repeatedly in the top quarter though, so you can pick any of those and feel pretty good about it.

And to the original article:
“Our brand-repair surveys aren’t self-selecting or warranty-based. We invite millions of subscribers via regular mail and online to answer questions”

Oops. You’re right — I blew the definition of a “self selected survey” there. The real question, however, is what is the response rate on your solicitations to participate?

Until Consumer Reports gives a detailed breakdown on how they score products (something at least as good as car and driver does for their scores), their ratings will be pretty much useless.

I respectfully disagree.

I did analysis on their ratings for composite decking products and translated ratings to numeric values to try to dissect the overall rating value.

10 = excellent
9 = very good
8 = good
7 = fair
6= poor

Based on ratings, not one product equaled the overall score for their product. But, when comparing two products with equal rating scores, those with lower ratings scores, that were priced lower, were bumped up to reach a higher overall score.