Consumer Reports Rates eBook Readers

[Billi]

No, the PB360 "Plus" doesn't have a Pearl screen. It is more or less the old hardware (+wifi, upgraded processor to 533 mHz and internal memory to 2GB) with the firmware of the new "Pro" models.

[HarryT]

Thanks!

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by pwjone1

Most libraries carry Consumer Reports, as their readers generally find it useful, so if you really wanted, you could probably go read one for free. And subscriptions are fairly low priced, low $20s, depending on how much you shop. The magazine is not all that thick, but remember the ads are pretty minimal, it's amazing to me how many ad pages a lot of magazines have. But I suspect your mind is made up, wouldn't make much difference, and that's OK, I can respect that.

I don't think anyone (including Consumer Reports) is claiming it's perfect, it makes mistakes, there are corrections, sometimes they get a bad product or a lemon, have to print later a correction or modified report. And I, too, have found occasion when I knew enough about a topic, to think they did not get it quite right. eReaders, I do think they got just about right, but I'm not claiming to be an expert there. I guess people react differently, if I disagree with something I'm reading in a periodical, I don't generally quit reading it entirely.

But let me ask one question:

Are there any better resources, commercial or non-profit, online or off, that are consistently and reliably better at rating a range of products?

As to your question, if every review of products I know about I find major mistakes, who cares if this is the best? It is still not worth the time reading.

[Desvelada71]

Sometimes Consumer Reports misses the boat! lol

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

As to your question, if every review of products I know about I find major mistakes, who cares if this is the best? It is still not worth the time reading.

Given that the only example you are willing to give of where they were "wrong" was actually just something you disagreed with them about rather than any factual error on their part, I think the rest of us will continue to find them a good, reliable source (as long as we remember that they sometimes weigh factors differently than we might).

Originally Posted by Pinecone

The review of protein suppliments, started with the assumption of 3 full servings a day.

And I recall one HIGH level of metal (all metals are toxic to some degree) was taht 3 serviing gave you 15.1 micrograms, and the recommended limit was 15 micrograms per day. Sorry but the analytical limit of accuracy is not anywhere close to call 15.1 significantly higher than 15. In fact, the 90% confidence interval will show that you are not sure it it actually higher or lower than the recommended limit.

In other words, they downrated a product you like (or perhaps have a professional relationship with) for going over, even by a relatively insignificant amount which goes away when you apply a margin of error, a set safety threshold and you disagree with them for doing so.

If you want to be taken seriously on this issue, how about some examples of factual mistakes they've made (and which they didn't correct the next issue or on the web site), not just conflicts with your own opinion?