Consumer Reports

[socrfan]

Another example of why I place little value in Consumer Reports. This is from Counter Spy's site.

Consumer Reports September 2007 rates CounterSpy V2 as #2, Spyware Doctor 5.0 as #8, and Spy Sweeper 5.3 as #9
Consumer Reports have revamped their testing methods to reflect reality better, and the results show. CounterSpy's quality got confirmed, as now we come out as #2 after Trend Micro's PC-cillin. Trend's tool is $30.00 a year though, and got 82 points total. CounterSpy was awarded 79 points, but is $20.00 the first year, and $15.00 the second, almost half of Trend's price over two years. It's not hard to choose the best value for money! (Spyware Doctor got 67 points and made #8, and Spy Sweeper 5.3 came close to last with 62 points.)

I used to like their ratings of products until, with some items I owned, I found their comments to be not only misleading but at times absolutely false.

[cooldude7273]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see a magazine such as Consumer Reports as a reliable source on where to turn for anti-malware protection.

[Reodor]

In general I find any 'editor rewiev/test' in any magazine or web page a bit suspicious if the same magazine or page is littered with adds of the tested products.
It all comes down to how it works for the individual user with his set up and demands.
Security apps without a decent full trial normally have something to hide. Apps with 'scan only' that indicates a phone book of infections without cleaning ability is worthless, how do you know its cleaning abilities?

[debls]

I too used to read Consumer Reports and refer to it before making purchases. Many times I found myself wishing I had bought another product and disappointed in what they had recommended.
It dawned on me one day as I filled out one of their surveys that these were all people like me rating everything from toasters to cars. LOL
I also think sometimes that human nature being what it is, we don't always want to admit that we spend a pile of money on a pile of crap and getting other people to buy it kind of validates your own purchase and does not leave you being the only jerk to make the same mistake.
I never read the magazine anymore. I would rather have a totally unbiased person who is well qualified and has nothing to gain or lose review something.

[swannie]

We don't have Consumer Reports here (as far as I know) but I agree that most reviews are subjective and/or untrustworthy for all products but especially when it comes to spyware, malware etc. I'd rather rely on the advice of someone on the forum who's actually used the product for some time than something written in a magazine and even then try it myself before I decide. That's where you're 200% right Reodor - all these trial programs that scan and then don't remove anything are just false advertising. Imagine a newbie facing 160 tracking cookies, 160 bad sites and 22 trojans on first scan and panic!!! I must buy this program NOW. It's a rip off.

[socrfan]

To Consumer Reports credit they don't accept or place ads of any sort in their magazine and some of their ratings are reliable but too often much of it feels like opinion instead of hard fact. One small example was a car I owned. They, in rating it, stated that the guages were very hard to read and make out. They couldn't have been more simple or easy to read. My dog could have read them. So people reading these things get the wrong impression. I've seen this on other products too. They had a much better magazine years ago.

Whether they are qualified to rate anti-malware....

[tom.tdw]

the alarmist approch is what annoys me about the trial version of SD

it would be much more responcable to make the trial version able to remove any browser based threats (eg. cookies)We don't have Consumer Reports here (as far as I know) but I agree that most reviews are subjective and/or untrustworthy for all products but especially when it comes to spyware, malware etc. I'd rather rely on the advice of someone on the forum who's actually used the product for some time than something written in a magazine and even then try it myself before I decide. That's where you're 200% right Reodor - all these trial programs that scan and then don't remove anything are just false advertising. Imagine a newbie facing 160 tracking cookies, 160 bad sites and 22 trojans on first scan and panic!!! I must buy this program NOW. It's a rip off.

[debls]

Agree with you Tom. I was desperate when I bought SD and it did clean up my computer when other apps would not.
I rarely buy when they show you what's wrong and tell you they won't fix it without $$$.
I would almost rather see them not market a 'free trial' and just go with the 30 day money back no questions asked deal.

[Reodor]

the alarmist approch is what annoys me about the trial version of SD

it would be much more responcable to make the trial version able to remove any browser based threats (eg. cookies)


They could just skip the 'Trial' version and use the 'Giggle Pack', but the best would be to do it a decent way that some other do: Full trial working for a limmited time. ;)

[swannie]

They could just skip the 'Trial' version and use the 'Giggle Pack', but the best would be to do it a decent way that some other do: Full trial working for a limmited time. ;)

Maybe they're afraid that people would keep downloading the trial version over and over again and NOT PAY???

[Reodor]

Maybe they're afraid that people would keep downloading the trial version over and over again and NOT PAY???

With the history of SD V5 so far, I guess once would be enough!:D

[tom.tdw]

Maybe they're afraid that people would keep downloading the trial version over and over again and NOT PAY???
just get the installer to create a reg key when finished and refuse to run if reg key exists:D

[swannie]

If it's that easy, why don't other 'trial programs' do it? Or do they?

[tom.tdw]

If it's that easy, why don't other 'trial programs' do it? Or do they?most just don't bother

the average user is just to lazy to uninstall/reinstall all the time (reminicent of the SD story maybe;) )