Wow, Mojavean, that's really interesting about the founder of CR and its schism with CU. Or maybe schism isn't the right word, they were perhaps more sequential. Anyway, the reaction to the communist and union threat is really interesting. I, too, chewed on CU a bit in their recent "survey". I have done so in the past, though, and heard nary a thing. I know many, many who have criticized them in this way over the years. I think I even read an interview with the director responding to this sort of criticism a few years back. ("We can't release our findings because that would jeopardize our objectivity"... blah blah blah - nonsense. I suspect they won't release their findings to minimize that which specific companies can complain about, but of I course I don't really know). It really is a crying shame for CU not to morph into more open accountability. I should think the take-home lesson of wikileaks and this whole modern internet era is that more transparency is vital. If it hasn't happened already, sites like GW will leach CU's support as people take stock of their bomb-purchases and find other ways to supplant the "research" provided by CU. Trouble is, the aggregate summation of information provided by CU is unique, and the right, really the only way to provide useful information. I am really valuing GW, but at the end of the day, these are all just individual anecdotes, provided by strangers with varying degrees of reliability and their own often-unacknowledged sets of filters and biases. It's always been something of a transcendental and frankly, political question the degree to which one values anecdotes. But I should think this internet era ought to be pushing at least one forum (e.g., CU) to more thorough and open accountability, not less (which would be the inherent realm of a anecdote-site such as this). But it's always frustrating trying to tell another how to run their business! From salesmen who could actually *make* the sale if only they ever smiled, just once, to mega-testing firms that instill presumed filters onto their analysis without disclosing their makeup. I suppose there might be more hope of tilting at this windmill than at some others, in deference to their inherent or at least stated 'democracy' (I think they give a nod to such theory, do they not?). But I think, truthfully Mojavean, it is a lost cause. CU knows full well their value would be enhanced by open reporting, and they have consciously chosen, long ago, not to do so. They have variously defended the decision over the years, but I am unaware of them ever wavering. I think nothing short of a flat-out full stakeholder's revolt will force any such change of policy. I hope I'm wrong and if you'd like to direct this particular footsoldier, lemme know how. I'll sign whatever you suggest or write an individual letter if you think it worthwhile. Feel free to contact me offlist if you'd like to strategize. :)

I am a long time CU subscriber who is currently trying to buy an 18,000 BTU AC. Aside from the fact that CU doesn't rate anything that size, what I find, time and time again, is that user reports don't match the ratings. The same is true on refrigerators. So let me talk about what I we going on - CU has often used oddball criteria to evaluate products. Back in the 70's, water usage was key to a washing machine's review. I am sure this sill goes on. They are, after all, engineers. -no one looks at the long term. If you think this is a problem with appliances, think about what has been going on with pharmaceuticals. - CU doesn't realize that style or design exist, therefore, you cannot sort refrigerators by counter depth or near counter depth - you can select by size though. For stoves, you can't sort by slide in. This is really annoying if you need a specific design. -Perhaps the most famous example of CU calling a product wrong was a top ranked American Standard toilet, which became a class action law suit and which on, I think, Terry Love's plumbing site, there are an unbelievable number of negative reviews and criticisms. None of these guys could figure out why CU doesn't ask plumbers for their experience. I can pros and cons to this, but they have a point. - there is no question that appliances are made more cheaply than in the past, so they don't last anywhere near as long. Parts that were formerly metal are now plastic, often cheap plastic. Add to this the fact that appliances often aren't packed with sufficiently strong materials so they often arrive damaged. Repairs of any type are out sourced, so they are not do e properly and are a major source of hassles. - It is hard to evaluate user reports, because of all the fake reviews, positive and negative on sites. Also, many products have few or new reviews on line. In the end, I found it impossible to figure out which AC to buy because the reviews and the rankings didn't agree. I planned to go to some privately owned stores, but THEY all had reviews that were as bad as the big boxes. So I went into the ONE store that had good reviews and bought what the salesman recommended, a GE, despite all the comments about the quality of GE products. One review said the store pushes cheaply made GEs - but everything is cheaply made. So I decided to trust what the salesman said "In this neighborhood, we wouldn't dare sell anything that isn't good." Now THAT is true - Park Slope, Brooklyn is famously whiney, entitled and quick to complain. It is also quite affluent. Did I make the right choice? No idea. But I need an AC and this is as good a way to decide as any. Good luck!

I just got a copy of the August issue that the Oasisowner posted about and it's quite a good article. First of all, it's a 21 page article about how to "Create the Perfect Kitchen For You" - with sections focused on making a plan, defining your style, and choosing your appliances. There is a lot of detailed information and an example kitchen remodel that ended up costing $29,482. A lot of the information in the article was similar to what I've read here on GW. However, with everything that the article covers, it can't really go in depth on any one subject. So, the section on countertops is very brief. There is about a 3 sentence summary of the most used types of countertops, and a ratings table. I'm not sure what rgreen48 was quoting earlier, but here's what the article actually says about soapstone: "Soapstone $50-$100 per sq. ft installed It's not as common as granite—and it's stunning at first. It resists heat damage, and small scratches can be sanded finely, then coated with mineral oil. But it nicks, cuts and scratches easily, and some tough stains won't wash away." That is a pretty brief description and doesn't entirely jive with what I have found out about soapstone, but for a broad audience and giving a brief summary, it's pretty decent. Of course I think people should do more research than reading three sentences before picking a a countertop that they are going to live with for years. I also agree with Oasisowner that the table has some "unusual" ratings. In fine print below the table, they described how they tested the counters: They applied 20 common foods and household products, let them sit overnight before cleaning. Sliced and chopped directly on the counters with chef's knives and serrated knives. Put a pot heated to 400° Ran a weighted sanding block back and forth 25 times. Dropped blunt and pointed objects from 3.5 feet I personally would never cut directly on a countertop, but I can see how some of the other tests would be good at assessing durability.

We moved into our new old house 18 months ago and had to have the line to the septic tank snaked out 3 times in the dead of winter. The rooter guys told us to only use Scott 1000, nothing else. We started using that and haven’t had a problem since. There’s something weird about our pipe to the tank that was clogging.