On Dec 12, 8:49*am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com>
wrote:
> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:72b201f1-4031-4404-b4f0-9ae5961c3c68@v13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 3:36 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are
> > currently
> > using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply
> > state
> > the PERCENTAGE of failure rate that is actually what the current
> > ratings are
> > reflecting?
>
> > Come to think of it, that would not work. Subscribers would wise up
> > and no
> > longer subscribe if they realize what CR is showing as a 'list' is
> > actually
> > showing that ALL manufactures vehicles are falling within the
> > standard
> > statistical methodology of the 2% failure rate for ALL manufactured
> > products
> >
> > Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis before
> > spouting
> > off and looking stupid?
>
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...est/consumer-r...
>
> I have read it and I still believe the little circle over emphasize
> small differences, that may not be statistically valid. In the
> discussion they talk about the average circle representing a failure
> rate of 2.5% (not an actual value, but their example). Do you think
> that a sample size of 100 vehicles is enough so that you can cut
> things that fine (the difference between average and excellent is 2.5%
> and there is "very good in between)? And then consider that the sample
> is not a random sample. People choose to participate. And the only
> people who have that choice are Consumer Reports readers. So the
> people who respond are opinionated, motivated people who like Consumer
> Reports. Don't you suppose they are likely to be biased towards
> agreeing with CR's editorial opinions?
>
> Ed

So you're claiming a CR reader who drives a Chevy is simply going to
report more problems than one who drives a Toyota? Why? And do you
have a shred of evidence to back up this wild accusation?

If you were correct, all the cars low on CR's scoring would be rated
unreliable too, and vice-versa? That's simply not true. Look at the
articles. Or are you claiming readers look at what other readers say
about reliability, and then next year, like sheep, write down the same
things? That's simply ludicrous. And if so, no car would ever change
its reliability, and many do.