Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I am interested in buying an upright vacuum, bagged, and I am willing to spend up to, say, $350.  It will be used, not heavily, by an older woman who has a shedding cat and is not mechanically apt.  A longish cord and an attachment for a linoleum floor would be a plus.  I'll take any suggestion, but in the absence of any I am looking at a Hoover UH30010COM Platinum Lightweight Bagged Upright Vacuum Cleaner with Canister, which is sold on Amazon.  My concern with Hoovers in general is that according to CR they are highly repair prone.  Anybody have experience with this model in particular, recent experience with Hoovers in general, or any other suggestions?

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine;

I am so glad that you disagree w/me.  I have no objection to you continuing to do so.  Love it!

I will be responding to your last post, but I have to get back to work.  I will put together something really good for people to "chew on".

Mike_W wrote:

I find the CR results to be entertaining and somewhat useful.  There certainly are limitations, particularly since the vacuums are only tested on medium cut pile carpeting.   A suboptimal vacuum on medium pile carpeting may do an excellent job on low pile carpeting.  Who knows if the results are generalizable to other carpeting types.  I have also commented that the filtration scores are of very limited value, since almost every vacuum receives an excellent score for filtration.  If we are to believe Miele's advertisements and anecdotal evidence from allergy sufferers, we would presume that the filtration of Miele's is better than that of a Dirt Devil Featherlite Bagless.  However, the emissions scores are the same on these vacuums. 

I don't know much about Rainbow vacuums, but given that it is curious that they can be one of the worst vacuums for cleaning carpeting when they are sold by in home demonstrations in which they have to perform well enough to convince a consumer to part with over $2000 dollars.

Reasonable criticism of CR's methodology is good, because it forces them to improve.   I think it's fairly good for eliminating choices, but not necessarily for finding the best choice.

CarmineD wrote:

I will say it again, CR should only be used as a way to compare some vacuum cleaner’s features.  For countless years, I have found evaluations inaccurate.  These have been mentioned in past years, like saying one machine made by a manufacturer “feels heavier” than the same machine under a different brand name.  I have read comments from others, who could not understand why their vacuum scored low.  I have also heard the same thing when people post comments on CR’s website.  There are inaccuracies.

 Severus,  it is fine if you think CR is good reading.  I think it is quite funny reading sometimes myself.  I read it, but I do not read it for the same reasons you might.  I need to know what they are printing in regards to vacuum cleaners, so that I can comment when someone says a particular machine was highly rated.  Or, if a vacuum cleaner did badly in the ratings.   Vacuum enthusiasts wait in anticipation of the vacuum issue.  I noticed that you were the first to post a thread on its arrival.

A vacuum salesman/repairman should not be using CR for their business.  What I mean by that is that they should not be following what CR recommends, to promote their business.  Look at it this way, hypothetically, CR evaluates vacuum cleaners and the top choice is Aerus.  You, the Aerus salesman tell your customers,  “Look, CR even promotes the Aerus machine as the number one choice.  They know what they are talking about.  What a great magazine.”  A year goes by and CR does not give a favorable evaluation of the same Aerus.  The salesman then says CR magazine is a worthless piece of junk.  The same customers have heard the salesman after both CR issues.  What is the customer to believe?  The customer is going to think the salesman does not know much about vacuum cleaners, or his product, if he has to rely on CR to sell or back up his product.  A good vac salesman will be able to use his knowledge to sell.

If a salesman is selling a product, he should tell someone about the product and not that CR rates it “number two” or “thirty”.  The only time that I have ever used CR’s scores is to use it against someone.  It happened on one of the vacuum forums, when a person said they follow CR religiously.  That person put down one product and exalted another.  I showed that person the one that was put down was rated higher than her praised one.

Carmine, only using a few samples limits choices when shopping for a vacuum cleaner. We are talking vacuum cleaners in the U.S. and not the world.  CR is a U.S. publication.  What is worse, Good Housekeeping usually has a smaller selection.  For the longest times, people did not know what a Riccar or Simplicity was.  I highly promoted these two brands, because they were durable, good quality, good performing machines.  Yet CR did not always test these brands until more and more people heard about them. 

Carmine, not everyone knows that “experts in the field are the final and best source of advice”.  That is why they turn to CR and shop at big box stores. BTW, not everyone is an expert.  That is why people should visit a few places and not just one.

CR over recent years typically tests and rates big box store brands more often than the indy and d-t-d brands.  I opine because more vacuum buyers gravitate toward these brands and models with their pervasiveness in all the big box stores.  Usual price ranges for these big box brand vacuums are $50-$250.  Exception is dyson.  If vacuum buyers are more discerning, and have budgets in the $250-$350 and more for their vacuum purchases, local vacuum stores are the best source of brands, models. 

It's not about a one time vacuum purchase, it's about a business relationship.  CR doesn't look at it that way and sadly probablt can't.  Most vacuum buyers don't.  CR caters to the mass marketed brands and models.  For these reasons, in addition to the reasons already provided, makes it a guide not the gospel.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I think CR has more than proved that by its allowing consumer reviews.  Most are not "expert opinions" but food for thought.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Thank you Venson.  Something to chew on.

Carmine D.

Mike_W wrote:
Certainly you have a different motivation for reading it than I do, given that you are in the business and I am a consumer.   I would agree with you that it is foolish to promote CR rankings.  Rankings depend on whose included and who isn't.   However, the total scores and individual scores are invariant to who's included.  Assuming that the tests are relevant to your situation, then they are valid for comparison purposes.

CR tests are valid, fair, and repeatable.   They use solid experimental designs that ensure that each vacuum has the same opportunity to perform.   Obviously the user reviews are helpful supplements.  Based on the CR reviews, I would have no idea that the Dyson DC07 failed on some carpet types.  I'm not sure what vacuum would be best if I had deep shag carpeting. 

If I had to recommend to a consumer how to use the ratings, I would say to see if the vacuum has an overall score of 61 to 80, in which case its considered a very good vacuum - these are CR's top tiered vacuums.   If you have bad allergies, look elsewhere for advice because CR's emissions scores don't discriminate at a level that is helpful. 

If you tend to pick up a lot of fine dust, the CR results may be of limited value given that tests are conducted with empty bags.   I will leave it to experts to say what vacuums work better on low pile carpeting, berber, and shag, since CR only tests on medium pile cut pile carpeting. 

CR's ratings will be debated forever.  However as a not-for-profit organization that I have no memory of hearing of using its position or name  for the purpose of self-aggrandizement, I don't recall CR ever consenting to use of its recommendations by vendors in the first place. 

Does anyone know if or when Consumer Reports stopped "policing" use of its recommendations by sellers or vending entities to push. product?  They usually took such vendors to task or court over it.  In past CR highly frowned upon the practice and still does unless policy has been changed. 

I had a friend who worked for CR at some point in time and she informed me that the organization took all it set its hands to quite seriously.  Use of CR ratings by vendors to garner sales is an issue kindred to the re-use of disposable vacuum bags.  People are told not to do it but go ahead and do it anyway.

Venson

CR's ratings mirror GHI and Which? in the UK; consumers generally check to see what is rated as the "best" and move onto buying the products. Id hazard to guess that only a select few will continue to read the features further on with the way the Internet delivers information.

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

CR has not changed.  CR, owned by the nonprofit Cinsumers Union, forbids companies from citing its respected awards in their ads.   CR's annual auto issue [April 2010] recommended slightly more than one out of every four GM models the magazine evaluated.  David Champion, CR's director of auto testing, says it buys the vehicles it tests from dealers.  "We do not want to be beholden to the manufacturers in any way," he said.  " We don't want to be seen as selling our names to manufacturers."

Contrast this with Consumers Digest which sells its awards usage to makers to advertize.  Consumers Digest chose 15 GM cars and trucks for its 2010 "Best Buy" awards.  Then GM paid the magazine fees for the right to mention those awards in its ads.   CD says its typically asks $35,000 for the first award and $25,000 for each subsequent award.  CD has a different business model than CR.  Fees for its awards are one of its main sources of revenue.  Its magazine has no subscribers, runs no ads and is only available in certain bookstores and retail shops.   

Carmine D.