On 13/09/13 16:01, Tim Watts wrote:
On Friday 13 September 2013 15:43 Martin wrote in uk.rec.gardening:


They did indeed. I rather like that. Nowadays one has to take
their lack-of-bias much more on trust. If I ever saw something
that made me doubt it, I'd re-evaluate my position.

They are very weak on testing things like cameras.
I bought a camera Which? recommended only to find that other more
professional testers had found an obvious weakness.

I tried Which a few years ago (having read my parents' copies in the 70's).

Having spent the later intervening years reading online (free) camera,
computer component and audio/visual kit reviews, I found Which's reviews so
laughably poor and without depth, method or in fact any tangible content, I
wrote them off.

This is a problem that they are facing, IMHO. There are many disparate
sources of info out there, many in more depth that Which? There is a
significant danger that they spread themselves too thin.

But Which still has advantages:
- breadth of coverage of topics you really don't want to know too
much about (e.g. washing machines) but really do need to know
about once a decade. And also rapidly changing items that
you need more frequently, e.g. CFL lightbulbs
- general consumer info, e.g. useful "tricks" if you ever
go to the small claims court, plus how to be wise enough
that you don't need to
- long-term reliability and customer service info that simply
cannot be in reviews

My father once said that Which? prevented him from buying
expensive soaps (Imperial Leather, IIRC), and the saving
on that alone was sufficient to pay for a subscription.

Probably a bit of exaggeration, but nonetheless a useful
insight.