3 ms·
It’s what annoys me of German darling test.de (Stiftung Warentest, they were set up as a trust by the government to avoid any kind of outside influence, custome
by Semaphor 3y ago
It’s what annoys me of German darling test.de (Stiftung Warentest, they were set up as a trust by the government to avoid any kind of outside influence, customers pay for their data), their reviews are complete black boxes, no idea why anything was highly rated and there is no real background.
I far prefer ETM-Testmagazin.de, they are a for-profit company and also sell their tests, but they actually give you all their testing & measurement data while still giving recommendations and textual reviews. Maybe they are scummy, and I can’t tell, but considering that I find stiftung warentest mostly useless, they are still far superior.
- tethys 3y ago> their reviews are complete black boxes They are certainly not "complete black boxes". This page [0], for example, explains in detail their test procedure for vacuum cleaners. Just an excerpt on durability testing (via deepl): > Impact test (500 cycles): The hoovers drive over thresholds 10 000 times and bump into posts 1 000 times. > Drop test: The suction nozzle must survive 1 200 drops from a height of 80 centimetres. > Cable pull-out test: 6 000 pulls. > Test of hose attachments: 40 000 swings with the connection nozzle clamped. > Squeezing the pipes, hoses and auxiliary air adjusters: The testers load them with about 70 kilograms for ten seconds. [0]: https://www.test.de/Staubsauger-im-Test-1838262-1838266/ https://www.test.de/Staubsauger-im-Test-1838262-1838266/
- Semaphor 3y agoThat is one of the better ones, most (or at least anything I ever looked at) have far shorter and less detailed "so testen wir" sections. But I guess complete blackbox is incorrect. I’d still want actual data in most cases.
- cgeier 3y agoI would presume they are doing it on purpose, so that industry doesn't optimize for their tests when they develop their next product.