The State of Tech Journalism in 2024

4. The Corporate-Media Problem

While our dataset includes hundreds of publications, there’s a hidden layer often overlooked: the parent company.

At first glance, it might seem like individual websites are the main offenders, but the reality is far more interconnected. Many of these sites are owned by the same corporations. Imagine pulling fifteen publishers from a bucket—despite their unique names, several might belong to the same parent company.

Take Future PLC, for example. Of the 29 sites they own in our database, 17 are designated as Fake Reviewers, while another 8 are labeled Not Trusted. These aren’t obscure outlets, either. Future owns high-traffic sites like TechRadar, GamesRadar, and What Hi-Fi?, all of which are plagued with fake reviews.

This raises a troubling point: the benefits of being owned by a parent company—such as consistent branding and oversight—aren’t translating into what matters most: rigorous, objective testing. Instead, publications under the same corporate umbrella often share information and imagery, amplifying half-baked work or even misinformation across multiple platforms.

In the worst cases, parent companies use their reach unscrupulously, pushing products or agendas without accountability. Many publishers see brands as clients rather than entities to scrutinize, prioritizing ad revenue over unbiased reviews.

The result? Corporate-owned media outlets are significantly more likely to manipulate reviews compared to independents—though independents aren’t without their issues. Every major “Big Media” company in our dataset has more fake reviewers under their control than any other category.

In our dataset, corporate-owned publications are those marked with “No” in the independent column. These are publications owned by larger media conglomerates, publicly traded companies, or those that have raised external capital.

Below is a table of the top 5 media conglomerates that dominate the product and tech review space. For our study, we analyzed publications from Future (the largest by number of publications), DotDash Meredith (the leader in traffic), Valnet (the youngest), Hearst (the oldest), and Condé Nast (the most well-known). This breakdown highlights their scale, influence, and estimated reach within the industry.

Trust Rating Distribution 

We analyzed 66 publications across 5 corporate media giants, and the Trust Rating ranged from a low ranging from 9.30% Trust Rating (Harper’s Bazaar) to a 78.10% (Mountain Bike Rider). Here’s some statistics of trust ratings for corporate-owned publications: 

The mean Trust Rating of just 40.14% highlights a significant trust deficit across the publications in this dataset. This already troubling average is compounded by an alarming minimum score of 9.30%, which suggests that some publications are almost entirely untrustworthy.

With such a low baseline, it’s clear that trust isn’t just inconsistent—it’s fundamentally broken for many of these outlets.

The graph below illustrates just how entrenched the problem of fake reviews is in the largest parent companies in our dataset. Every single corporation has more Fake Testers than any other Trust classification.

Let’s dive into our 5 shortlisted parent companies, starting with the biggest fake testers of them all, Future PLC.

4.2. The Parent Company with the Most Traffic: Dotdash Meredith

Google receives over one billion health-related searches everyday. Health.com often tops the list of results when people look for advice.

It’s one of 40 brands under Dotdash Meredith, a media giant founded in 1902, now generating $1.6 billion annually. While they don’t have as many publications as Future PLC, they’re the biggest in terms of revenue.

But here’s the catch: money doesn’t always mean trust.

Expanding Beyond Educational Content… Into Affiliate Marketing

You’d think a company with such a strong legacy would deliver trustworthy content across the board. And to be fair, their home and wellness advice is generally solid. But when it comes to product reviews? They often miss the mark.

Dotdash Meredith’s Trust Rating reflects this gap, coming in at a mediocre 40.53% across 13 publications.

The reason? Many of their reviews are labeled as “tested,” but the testing isn’t real. Instead, they’ve prioritized speed and profitability, pumping out content that drives revenue rather than builds trust.

What used to be a focus on educational content has shifted. These brands are now leaning heavily into affiliate marketing, using product reviews as a quick cash grab. And let’s face it—thoroughly testing products takes time and money, two things that don’t fit neatly into this new strategy.

Trustworthy? Not so much. Profitable? Absolutely.

Dotdash’s Fraudulent “Tested” Product Reviews

Take Health.com, for example. It falls under the YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) category—a space where content can directly impact your health or finances. That kind of content should meet the highest standards, with expert verification and thorough research. But their “Best Air Purifier for Mold” article? It claims to test products, yet fails to provide critical data like ppb or µg/m³—essential criteria for measuring air quality. Instead, they’re just repeating what’s printed on the box, which we point out in the screenshot below.

Vague claims about the EnviroKlenz Mobile Air System’s performance don’t cut it without solid test results. “A noticeable reduction in congestion and allergy symptoms overnight”? What does that even mean? Was it tested on an actual person? And how severe were their allergies?

Without context, how can anyone trust this purifier to handle serious allergy problems? This declaration that the EnviroKlenz is the “best air purifier for mold” needs to be backed up with reliable filtration rate data. For a site claiming to offer health advice, this kind of oversight is a glaring red flag.

Sadly, this isn’t an isolated issue. Fraudulent reviews are popping up across several Dotdash publications. While Serious Eats stands out as trustworthy, it doesn’t get nearly as much traffic as sites like Health.com or The Spruce.

Those sites feature misleading “How We Test” sections (like in The Spruce’s “Best Roomba” guide below), claiming to evaluate key criteria but offering little to no real data to back it up.

It’s a bait-and-switch that deceives readers into thinking they’re getting expert insights, when they’re not.

Then there’s People.com where reviews stretch the definition of “testing.” They’ll measure something simple, like vacuum battery life, but skip over crucial tests like debris pick-up on carpets or hard floors. It’s testing for the sake of appearances, not usefulness.

Even Lifewire has its inconsistencies. Their journalists might use the products and share plenty of photos, occasionally even showing test results. But there’s little mention of the equipment used or a consistent approach to testing.

What does this mean for readers? Dotdash Meredith seems more focused on driving sales than delivering truly trustworthy content. When it comes to health or home advice, take a hard look—because it’s not just your trust on the line. It’s your life and your money, too.

Dotdash’s Trust Rating Breakdown Across Publications

The brands DotDash owns break down to:

As you can see above, Dotdash Meredith’s publications we investigated have a concerning pattern of trust issues. Better Homes & Gardens and Allrecipes both fall below the 50% threshold, indicating significant reliability concerns despite their household names.

The Spruce Eats and The Spruce Pets all cluster in the mid-30% range, with their trust ratings signaling a lack of credibility in their content. Even niche brands like Trip Savvy and Food and Wine score alarmingly low at 30.74% and 20.15%, respectively.

These numbers underscore a systemic problem across Dotdash Meredith’s portfolio, where only one brand—Serious Eats—rises above the threshold of truly trustworthy content.

Here’s a statistical analysis of DotDash’s Trust Ratings:

The 40.53% Trust Rating isn’t just bad—it’s alarmingly low. Even worse, the median score of 37.67% shows that most of their publications fail harder than the average.

Their range, from 20.15% to 70.87%, doesn’t offer much hope either. And with a standard deviation of 13.67%, the message is clear: Dotdash’s performance isn’t just inconsistent—it’s consistently poor.

Their priorities are clear: speed and profit come first, while trust falls to the back of the line. This is painfully obvious in their approach to reviews.

Look at sites like Very Well Health and The Spruce. Both include a “How We Tested” section at the bottom of reviews. At first glance, this looks great. But dig deeper, and you’ll find a glaring issue—they never actually share the results of their so-called tests.

Let’s break this down with Very Well Health as an example of how misleading these practices can be.

How Very Well Health makes it seem like they’re testing.

Very Well Health is widely regarded as a trusted source for reliable, accessible health information crafted by healthcare professionals. On the surface, it’s a beacon of credibility. But dig a little deeper, and the cracks start to show—especially with their 24.70% Trust Rating across two categories out of the 30 we investigated.

So what went wrong with this so-called “trusted” resource?

In their air purifiers buying guide, the “How We Tested” section (screenshotted below) looks promising, suggesting they’ve evaluated key criteria like noise levels (dB) and air filtration rates (ACH or CADR)—what they vaguely refer to as “effectiveness.”

But here’s the issue: it stops at appearances. As we point out above, there’s no actual evidence or detailed results to back up these claims. For a site built on trust, that’s a major letdown.

But as you scroll through the guide, something becomes clear: the measurements they claim to collect are missing. Instead, you’re left with basic specs and little else.

Above, we screenshotted one of many written air purifier reviews featured in the guide. However, we noticed that there aren’t any individual reviews for the air purifiers linked anywhere in the guide. What you see above is as deep as it gets—surface-level summaries that don’t offer meaningful insights.

It doesn’t stop there. In their other category, vacuums, the Trust Rating is even lower than for air purifiers. Curious about how that played out? Take a look below.

Can DotDash regain our trust again?

Dotdash Meredith has two clear paths to rebuild trust.

1. If their brands are truly testing the criteria they claim—like noise levels, debris pickup, or air filtration rate—they need to prove it. Show the data. Readers deserve to see the actual test results.
2. The “How We Tested” sections either need to be removed or rewritten to clearly state these reviews are based on research or hands-on impressions—not testing.

If they’re not testing, they need to stop pretending. Reviews shouldn’t say “tested” when they’re just researched.

These aren’t complicated fixes, but they’re critical. Dotdash has a real opportunity to set things right. It starts with one simple thing: being honest about what they’re doing—or what they’re not.

4.3. The Youngest Parent Company: Valnet

Among the publishing giants we analyzed, Valnet is the youngest. Founded in 2012, this Canadian company has quickly built a portfolio spanning everything from comics to tech, with popular sites like CBR and MovieWeb under its wing. Owning over 25 publications, Valnet ranks as the fourth-largest parent company in our analysis.

We investigated 9 of Valnet’s publications, and unfortunately, the company earned a poor average Trust Rating of 36.56%. With sites like Make Use Of and Android Police in its fold, this shouldn’t be the case, being brands long considered reliable in the tech world.

So what’s the problem? Despite clear testing guidelines, our investigation into several categories revealed troubling inconsistencies. Testing TVs and soundbars is undeniably challenging, but if you’re not doing it thoroughly, it’s better to avoid the claim altogether.

Let’s take a closer look at how the Trust Ratings break down across Valnet’s investigated publications.

Valnet’s publications show consistently low trust ratings, even for established names. Pocket Lint leads this group with 47.86%, yet still falls under Fake Reviewer classification. XDA Portal and Hot Cars, at 45.71% and 43.93%, highlight similar reliability concerns.

Review Geek and Android Police fare no better, both scoring around 40%, while Game Rant and How To Geek drop near 25%. Pocketnow trails significantly at 14.60%, marking the lowest trust score in Valnet’s portfolio.

These results underscore widespread credibility issues across the company’s brands.

Here’s our statistical analysis of the 9 Valnet publications’ Trust Ratings, which revealed the lowest standard deviation among all parent companies.

Valnet’s trust ratings are all shockingly low, with an average score of just 36.56% and a median of 40.92%. That’s a troubling performance for a company of this size.

Their most trusted brand, Pocket-Lint, managed only 47.86%—meaning even their best got a failing trust rating. At the lower end, scores drop as low as 14.60% (Pocketnow), making it clear that credibility is a widespread issue across their portfolio.

The standard deviation of just 10.94%—the lowest among all parent companies—might suggest consistency, which can sometimes be a positive indicator. However, in this case, it only highlights how uniformly poor these trust ratings are across all their publications.

For the average reader, this means opening a Valnet-owned publication comes with serious trust concerns. And even if you stumble upon one of their honest publications, the content still doesn’t inspire confidence. The Trust Ratings are bad across the board.

Both Valnet’s tested and researched reviews are low-quality.

Valnet’s core problem isn’t just Fake Testers—though that’s still a major issue. Out of the 9 Valnet publications we analyzed, 4 are Fake Testers. But even beyond fake reviews, the rest of their content doesn’t fare much better. When they’re not serving up fake testing claims, they’re publishing low-quality reviews that fall short of being genuinely helpful.

Over half of their publications earned a Not Trusted classification. This means they either test truthfully but don’t test enough, or they skip testing entirely and offer lackluster researched reviews. It’s one thing to lie about testing, but it’s another to fail our 55-point inspection so badly that even a Low Trust score is out of reach. These publications aren’t just misleading—they’re failing to provide readers with useful, actionable information.

And Game Rant, one of Valnet’s juggernauts has the lion’s share of the traffic, falls flat even when they do test.

Their gaming mice reviews include truthful testing claims, but they only cover the bare minimum, like customization software. Sure, that tells you what the software can configure, but it’s hardly enough. Key criteria like click latency and sensitivity—the metrics that matter most to consumers—are nowhere to be found.

Game Rant isn’t entirely wrong in this category; they’re just not doing enough.

And that’s Valnet’s biggest issue: when they’re not faking reviews, they’re simply not putting in the effort required to earn trust.

But let’s not forget—fraudulent reviews are still a significant part of Valnet’s portfolio, and that’s a red flag that can’t be ignored.

The Fakery at Android Police

Android Police has built a reputation as a go-to source for Android news and reviews, popular among tech enthusiasts. But when it comes to their reviews, readers should tread carefully. With a 40.92% Trust Rating and a Fake Tester label, it’s clear their credibility doesn’t hold up. They’re one of four Fake Testers we uncovered in Valnet’s portfolio of nine publications.

Five of Android Police’s 14 categories we investigated contained fake testing, including VPNs which received a 17.75% Trust Rating. The issues with their VPN guide are hard to ignore.

For starters, there are no screenshots of the authors, Darragh and Dhruv, actually using the VPNs they recommend. In the screenshot below, their VPN reviews lack quantitative data like download speeds (Mbps) or latency (ms)—essential metrics for evaluating VPN performance.

As you can see above, Android Police is doing the bare minimum with their VPN reviews, relying on specs to describe what the VPNs do. Reading through the guide feels more like skimming a collection of product listings than actual reviews. There’s no depth, no real analysis—just surface-level details.

If you’re curious about the other 13 categories we investigated at Android Police, take a look at the embed below. While we trust them in Drones (with a decent 72.82% Trust Rating), the vast majority of their reviews fall short of earning any real confidence.

How Valnet Can Bounce Back

Valnet’s reviews are failing readers on nearly every front. Whether it’s Fake Testers misleading audiences with false claims or “honest” reviews that don’t fake testing lack depth and useful information, the result is the same: a loss of trust.

This isn’t just a problem—it’s a credibility crisis. To turn things around, Valnet needs to prioritize two key areas: transparency and effort.

First, stop faking testing. If a review claims to test, it should include measurable, quantitative results that back up those claims.

Second, for researched reviews, make them insightful and genuinely helpful. These should go beyond specs, offering detailed analysis and real value. Including original images—whether taken in-person or screenshots showing software or services in action—adds authenticity and trustworthiness.

Without these changes, Valnet risks losing what little trust they have left. It’s time for them to step up.

4.4. The Oldest Parent Company: Hearst Digital Media

Hearst is a truly massive publishing entity with a very long history that stretches all the way back to 1887. Every month, their network draws an impressive 307 million online visitors, making them one of the most influential players in the industry.

With ownership of over 175 online publications, Hearst ranks as the second-largest parent company in our dataset. But their history isn’t all positive. The founder, William Randolph Hearst, is infamous for his use of yellow journalism to build his empire. Today, Hearst Digital Media, their digital arm, seems to carry on that legacy, prioritizing sensationalism over substance.

Fake Testers dominate the Hearst publications we analyzed. Of the nine publications we reviewed, six were flagged for Fake Reviews. That’s a troubling statistic, especially considering Hearst’s enormous reach and the credibility its brands claim to uphold.

Here’s a closer look at the Trust Ratings for the nine Hearst publications we investigated.

The Trust Ratings for Hearst’s publications reveal widespread issues with credibility. Runner’s World leads with 59.98%, barely reaching “Low Trust,” while Car and Driver and Bicycling follow at 45.05% and 43.65%, failing to inspire confidence. Even Good Housekeeping, known for product recommendations, scores just 38.62% as a Fake Reviewer. At the lower end, Men’s Health has a shockingly low rating of 9.70%, highlighting the pervasive trust challenges within Hearst’s portfolio of brands.

Below is the statistical analysis on the Trust Rating data, with Hearst showing the lowest minimum Trust Rating across all parent companies analyzed. This means they own the most untrustworthy publication, Harper’s Bazaar (9.30%), of all 66 publications owned by the five parent companies.

Hearst’s average Trust Rating is just 32.65%, far below the 60% threshold for credibility. The median score of 33.52% reinforces this, showing most publications are consistently underperforming.

Even their best rating of 59.98% falls short, while the lowest plummets to 9.30%. A standard deviation of 15.62% suggests slight variation, but the overwhelming pattern is one of unreliability.

Much of Hearst’s traffic comes from major names like Good Housekeeping, Men’s Health, and Harper’s Bazaar. Yet, Good Housekeeping and Men’s Health are flagged as Fake Testers, and Harper’s Bazaar isn’t far behind with its dismal 9.3% Trust Rating. These results raise serious concerns about Hearst’s editorial standards.

Take Good Housekeeping, for example. A trusted name for over a century, it’s famous for its product reviews and the iconic Good Housekeeping Seal seen on store shelves. So why does this reputable product reviewer have a 38.62% Trust Rating? Let’s break it down.

The Fall of Good Housekeeping

Good Housekeeping has long been a trusted name for consumers, offering advice on products since its founding in 1885—before Hearst even existed. But its legacy and iconic seal of reliability is taking a hit, with a failing average Trust Rating across nine categories we investigated.

The failures here are especially disappointing because Good Housekeeping was once a go-to for verifying product quality. They also heavily promote their unique testing labs as a cornerstone of their credibility, so the mediocre average Trust Rating and amount of fake testing we found were shocking to us.

In regards to fake testing, take their soundbars guide for example in the screenshot below. They frequently mention their “testers” and testing, but there’s no actual data to back up their claims. No scores, no measurements—just vague statements like testers being “blown away” by sound quality.

Who are these testers mentioned above? Do they have names? What soundbar testing tools were used? What data supports the claim that a soundbar’s sound is “fantastic” or “powerful”? There’s nothing on maximum volume or frequency response. It’s all fluff, accompanied by a small spec box that offers product details but no real testing insights.

The individual reviews on the guide also do not feature real images of the soundbars, which is strange for one of the biggest product testers in the world.

The only real image of the soundbars is in the How We Test section and the featured image. It gives the impression that they tested the soundbars, but it doesn’t convince us since they still have zero test results.

Speaking of the “How We Test” section, it lists performance criteria they supposedly evaluate, but there’s no mention of methods, tools, or data.

The corrections we demand from Hearst

Hearst has a chance to turn things around, but it requires real action. If the Good Housekeeping testing labs are functional, it’s time to prove it.

Readers need to see measurable results—data like sound levels, frequency response, or speed tests. Without that proof, their testing claims feel hollow.

Visual evidence is just as important. Real images of products, videos of testing processes, and screenshots of testing software would add much-needed transparency.

Naming their testers and sharing their credentials would also go a long way in building trust.

And if no testing is actually happening? They need to stop pretending. Reviews labeled as “tested” should instead be called “researched” or “hands-on.” Honesty matters.

Good Housekeeping and other major Hearst brands have built their reputations on trust. Now, that trust is hanging by a thread. The fixes are simple, but they require effort. Without them, Hearst risks losing not just their credibility—but their audience, too.

4.5. The Most Well-Known Parent Company

Condé Nast, founded in 1909, built its reputation on glamorous publications like Vogue but has since expanded into tech and food with brands like WIRED and Bon Appétit. Across its portfolio, Condé Nast attracts over 302 million visitors each month, a testament to its broad influence.

However, the trustworthiness of their reviews is another story. In our dataset, we analyzed six of their publications, and the findings were troubling. Most of their traffic goes to Wired and Bon Appétit—two brands heavily plagued by fake reviews. This has dragged Condé Nast’s average Publication Trust Rating down to a failing 34.09%, far below the 60% benchmark for credibility.

Even their top performer, Ars Technica, narrowly misses a passing score at 59.48%, while Bon Appétit plummets to a dismal 16.15%. The rest, including WIRED and GQ, hover in the low 30s, revealing inconsistent and unreliable standards across their portfolio.

For a company of Condé Nast’s stature, these ratings are a serious red flag. Here’s a closer look at the Trust Ratings for the six Condé Nast publications we investigated.

Architectural Digest fares slightly better than the others in the lower range, with a rating of 36.55%, though it’s still classified as a Fake Reviewer. Epicurious, known for its culinary focus, sits at just 27.95%, falling far short of expectations for reliability. GQ, despite its global reputation, scores a mere 32.07%, indicating trust concerns even among its high-profile brands. These consistently low ratings underscore significant flaws in Condé Nast’s review practices across diverse categories.

To better understand these results, here’s the statistical breakdown of the Trust Ratings for Condé Nast’s publications below. With a sample size of just six, it has the smallest dataset among the parent companies analyzed, limiting the scope for variation.

The numbers paint a bleak picture. Condé Nast’s range spans from 16.15% to 59.48%, with a median trust rating of 32.22%. A standard deviation of 13.02% highlights some variation, but the pattern is clear: most reviews lack credibility.

WIRED’s struggles are particularly concerning. As a long-established authority in tech, Wired has traditionally been trusted for insightful, well-tested reviews. Yet, their 32.36% Trust Rating paints a different picture. Their reviews often fail to back up testing claims with meaningful data, show limited real-world images of products, and over-rely on specs rather than genuine insights. This earns Wired the Fake Reviewer label across several categories, further tarnishing Condé Nast’s credibility.

WIRED’s Testing Claims Fall Apart Under Scrutiny

23 out of 26 of Wired’s categories we investigated earned a failing Trust Rating, like their webcam category (30.40% Trust Rating). The issues are glaring in their reviews, starting with a complete absence of custom imagery.

Consider this webcam review. It’s packed with claims of testing but offers no real proof. There are no photos of the webcam in use, no screenshots of the video quality it outputs, and not even a snippet of footage captured from it.

Simply put, there’s no data to lean into. No real measurements, nothing that suggests the use of actual testing equipment. Just qualitative assessment of a product.

Real-world use? Maybe, even that’s hard to confirm.

The pros section that they call “WIRED” (screenshotted below) mentions key performance criteria that make up webcam picture quality, implying they made detailed evaluations.

Even more frustrating, the review discusses autofocus (highlighted above)—one of the most critical features of a webcam. The reviewer claims it performs well, maintaining focus up to four inches away. Yet there’s no imagery or video to substantiate this claim. No screenshots, no test footage—nothing but words.

Instead of helpful visuals, the review relies on stock images from the manufacturer that we show in the screenshot below.

This stock image approach undercuts their testing claims entirely. While the text suggests the webcam may have been used, the lack of any real testing data or custom visuals makes it hard to take these reviews seriously.

Wired’s reliance on vague assertions and generic images doesn’t just weaken this particular review—it reflects broader credibility issues across all their categories. We trust them for blenders, coffee makers, and drones, but we recommend you steer clear of the other 23 categories, especially the 15 containing fake tests.

How Conde Nast Can Rebuild Trust

Condé Nast’s trust problem is big, but it’s fixable. The solution starts with transparency and honest communication. If they want to regain credibility, they need to make some changes to their review and editorial practices. They can take next steps similar to the previous four parent companies:

1. They need to show their work. Testing claims mean nothing without proof. Reviews should include real data, like performance metrics, screenshots, or even videos of products in action. Custom images, not stock photos, should back up every claim. Readers need to see the tools, testers, and processes used. No more vague promises—just clear, measurable evidence.
2. If a product hasn’t been tested, they need to say so. Misleading phrases like “tested” should be replaced with honest descriptions like “researched” or “hands-on.” Readers value transparency, even if it means admitting a review is less thorough.

For a company as big as Condé Nast, these changes aren’t just a suggestion—they’re a necessity. Readers are watching. Rebuilding trust starts with doing the work and showing the proof.

Conclusion: Fakery is Prominent in Big Media

None of the parent companies have a decent average Trust Rating, as you can see below. None of them break 45%, let alone 50%, which is a sign of major trust issues. This isn’t just a one-off issue—it’s a systemic problem across the board.

For readers, this means approaching any publication under these conglomerates with caution. Whether it’s TechRadar, Good Housekeeping, Wired, etc., their reviews often lack the rigor and transparency needed to earn trust. Until these companies prioritize real testing and honest reporting, relying on their scores and recommendations is a gamble.

The bottom line? Trust needs to be earned, and right now, these major parent companies aren’t doing enough to deserve it.

Now you’ve seen how the five biggest parent companies are deceiving their audiences as their brands pull in a staggering 1.88 billion visitors a month. But what about individual publishers? Who are the five biggest fakers?

5.1. Consumer Reports

Many of you can remember a time when Consumer Reports was the trusted name in product reviews. Back then, if Consumer Reports gave a product the thumbs-up, you could buy with confidence. But these days, their reviews aren’t what they used to be.

As a nonprofit, they generate over $200 million annually, supported by nearly 3 million print magazine members and more than a dozen special-interest print titles covering autos, home appliances, health, and food.

With over 14 million monthly online visitors and 2.9 million paying members, they’ve built a massive audience—and they’re taking advantage of it.

Their content is distributed across multiple platforms, including mobile apps and social media channels.

Nowadays, there’s so much circumstantial evidence indicating that Consumer Reports hides their test results and duplicates their reviews across different products. And their disappointing 45.49% Publication Trust Rating reflects that.

While their car reviews are still pretty reliable, other product reviews and buying guides in other categories lack the in-depth test evidence that once distinguished Consumer Reports.

We reached out to Consumer Reports in December 2023, and we learned that they’ll give the actual test results if you contact them for the data. So the testing is happening, but getting that information is very inconvenient.

Many reviews are templatized, repeating the same sentences across different products’ reviews. See how these blender reviews for the Vitamix Professional Series 750 and the Wolf Gourmet High Performance WBGL100S have the exact same written review below?

And on top of duplicated reviews, little to no visible test results to back up their claims make Consumer Reports’ reviews unreliable.

Subscribers shouldn’t be receiving these basic reviews nor have to jump through hoops to see the test results—especially when Consumer Reports used to set the standard for transparency and detailed product reviews.

18 of the 23 categories we investigated earned the Fake Reviewer class. There’s repeated circumstantial evidence across categories that Consumer Reports is concealing their test results and duplicating their reviews.

Let’s take a look at their TV reviews for example, a category which earned a failing 47.60% Trust Rating.

TVs

TVs are the most difficult product category to test. It’s also expensive to afford all the proper test equipment, which probably isn’t an issue for Consumer Reports. However, why did they get that terrible 35.40% Trust Rating? Let’s look at their “Best TV” buying guide first.

Immediately in the subheadline, you see the author James K. Wilcox state that Consumer Reports tests a huge amount of TVs every year.

By seeing that subheadline, a reader expects to see test results in this TV buying guide from the best product testers in the world.

However, that’s exactly not the case. The guide lacks quatitative test results and visual evidence of the TVs being tested. Since the guide is missing test results, one might try finding them in the single TV reviews, like the LG OLED65C2PUA TV review. Unfortunately, that’s not the case as you can see in the screenshot below.

The Results section shows that CR rates TVs based on multiple criteria, many of which are very important, like picture quality, sound quality, and viewing angle.

At first glance, you’d think that this review of this LG TV looks pretty thorough and reliable. But a score out of 5 is pretty basic.

You may want to find out more info. How did this LG TV get a perfect score on Picture Quality? Luckily, there’s a tool tip that should go further in-depth and show the actual test results, right?

Unfortunately, when you mouse over the tooltips to get more information on their bizarrely simple scoring, there isn’t much beyond additional claims about the various criteria they tested.

Testing produces actual hard data, but there isn’t any here, just an explanation about what they were testing for.

Where’s the test data? You may try scrolling down the review to find those results. Then you’ll spot a Detailed Test Results section that must surely contain the test results to back up their scores. Right?

Even in the section that would seem most likely to provide “detailed results” there’s just qualitative language with no quantitative data. There are no color gamut graphs, no contrast screens, and no brightness measurements. Instead, we get statements like “brightness is very good” or “contrast is excellent.” 

If they were really testing contrast ratio (which they say is excellent) they’d provide a quantitative test result in an x:y format (Indicator 8.4 where we look for units of measurement). Consumer Reports never got points for Indicator 8.4 due to hiding their test results.

There’s also no mention of testing equipment like a luminance meter to measure the contrast or a colorimeter to measure color accuracy. There’s no TV testing methodology linked on the page either.

Even after you pay for a membership, you still don’t get any actual test results–you only get vague scores out of 5 for various criteria. You have to contact Consumer Reports to see the test results.

This is why they lost so many points in the Testing & Data Science category. Since we couldn’t see any of their quantitative test results, we had to mark their claim to test as “untruthful”. Their poor performance in that scoring category is what ultimately brought their Trust Score down below 60% in TVs. It’s the same story in many of their other categories. 

And even worse, their reviews are presented in this cookie cutter format that use templatized language.

Blenders was the worst case of these tokenized reviews that we came across. Check out the reviews for the Vitamix Professional Series 750 and the Wolf Gourmet High Performance WBGL100S below. The “Detailed Test results” Sections? Exact duplicates, as you can see by the highlighted parts.

It seems whoever put these reviews together didn’t even try to change the wording up between the reviews. 

Still don’t believe us? Take a look at these other sections reviews and see for yourself.

Let’s also take a look at two different reviews for an LG OLED77G4WUA TV and a Samsung QN77S90C, both 77 inch OLED TVs.

The two different TV reviews’ Detailed Test Results paragraphs above are the exact same except for one sentence. Both reviews highlight identical statements like “picture quality was excellent” and “color accuracy was excellent,” without offering any distinctive insights or data points for each model. These cookie-cutter reviews embody generic product praise rather than meaningful analysis.

And again, it’s not just TVs that’s the problem area in CR. Let’s take a look at some other categories where they claim to test despite publishing vague product reviews with no test results. The claim that they test products stands out most on pages where they ask for donations or memberships.

Routers

Routers is another problematic category with hidden test results and duplicated reviews. This category earned a pretty bad 45.20% Trust Rating. Click the “SHOW MORE +” below to expand this section to read it.

Let’s take a look at the top of a single product review this time.

There aren’t any bold testing claims at the top of the review page for CR, unlike other sites.

But as you scroll, you’ll see the same Ratings Scorecard with the basic 5-point scoring system that they call “test results”.

Like we saw with how CR handled televisions, the test results section for their router reviews follows a very similar structure. Lots of different criteria are examined and supposedly tested and that’s how an item receives scores out of five per criteria. Unfortunately, the tooltips contain no useful information – just further explanation on what makes up any given test criteria without actually providing test results.

If you keep scrolling, you’ll see that the detailed test results for routers are even more anemic than they were for televisions.

There isn’t much to go off of here beyond qualitative explanations of how the router performed. There’s no information about actual download speeds, upload speeds, latency, or range testing.

Show more +Show less –

Membership and Donation Pages

To top it all off, Consumer Reports promotes their product testing across their website, including pages where they solicit donations or memberships. Again, click the “SHOW MORE +” to read this section.

This emphasis on rigorous testing is out of sync with their anemic review content and lack of test data.

Show more +Show less –

The Correction We Demand

For a brand that built its name on transparency, having to jump through hoops to get actual test results is frustrating and bizarre.

People expect real, tested insights—not vague claims or recycled templates. And when that trust cracks, it’s hard to rebuild.

If Consumer Reports doesn’t change course, they risk losing what made them different: the confidence readers felt knowing they were getting honest, thorough advice. Without that trust, what’s left? Just another review site in a crowded field.

The corrections we demand? Show the test results and stop copying and pasting the same basic paragraphs across different product reviews. Give users access to real numbers, side-by-side product comparisons, and actually helpful reviews.

That’s how Consumer Reports can reclaim its place as a reliable source and boost their Trust Ratings. Because trust comes from transparency, not just from a good reputation.

5.2. Good Housekeeping

If you’ve ever grabbed a product off the shelf with the Good Housekeeping Seal on it, you know the feeling. That seal wasn’t just a logo—it was a promise.

It meant the product had been rigorously tested by the experts at the Good Housekeeping Institute, giving you peace of mind, right there in the store aisle. But things aren’t the same anymore.

What used to be a symbol of trust now feels like it’s losing its edge. Since 1885, Good Housekeeping has been a trusted name in home appliances, beauty products, and more.

With 4.3 million print subscribers and 28.80 million online visitors every month, they’ve built a reputation that millions have relied on. And now they’re taking advantage of that trust and cutting corners in their reviews.

Good Housekeeping has a similar story to Consumer Reports–it seems they’re hiding the test results, which is a big reason for their awful 38.62% Trust Rating across 23 categories we evaluated.

For a brand that once set the gold standard in product testing, this shift hits hard. Without the transparency they were known for, it’s hard to trust their recommendations. And that’s a tough pill to swallow for a name that’s been synonymous with reliability for over a century.

In the table below, we show how we evaluated 23 of Good Housekeeping’s categories that we found out of the 30 total.

They barely passed in vacuums (61.40%), which is unexpected since they’re know for testing appliances – it should be way higher. We trust them a little in e-bikes (61.53%), and routers (61.40%) thanks primarily to their actual use of the products, though there aren’t any test results so the Trust Ratings are passing yet rather low.

In the majority of their categories, however, it’s hard to tell if the products were actually put to the test due to a lack of quantitative test results. Their worst categories are air purifiers (13.40%) and drones (20.20%).

The way that Good Housekeeping (54.8M monthly views) handled their TV reviews is part of what spurred the intense analysis we started performing on product review testing: their testing claims didn’t reflect in the text they were publishing.

But the problems don’t stop at TVs – out of the 16 categories they claim to test, 11 were found to have faked testing. One of them is soundbars, which we dive into in the next section.

Soundbars

Good Housekeeping (GH) soundbar reviews earned them a rough 33.70%. How did this happen?

Let’s start with their “Best Soundbars” buying guide. GH makes an immediate claim about their testing in the title of the post, and has an additional blurb about it down below the featured image.

The expectation is clear: these 9 soundbars have supposedly been tested. Let’s keep reading further below.

The paragraph above dedicates itself to assuring the reader that testing is being performed by dedicated tech analysts who cover a variety of home entertainment equipment. The implication, of course, is obvious: soundbars are also covered.

The actual review portion (which we screenshot below), however, leaves a lot to be desired.

There’s no data despite clear mention of testers giving feedback, including direct quotes. No maximum sound levels are recorded, frequency response isn’t noted, and there’s no indication they tried to measure total harmonic distortion.

Ultimately, the testing claims fall flat without anything to back them up – instead, we just have qualitative language assuring us that the soundbar sounds “good” and gets loud. A small spec box accompanies the text, but specifications aren’t testing data. Anybody can get specs from the product listings.

The dedicated “how we test” blurb further down the guide isn’t any better.

As you can read above, there’s plenty of mentions of important performance criteria that are supposedly being tested, but there’s no data or mention of tools being used to help facilitate this testing. It’s just a bunch of claims with no supporting data to show they did what they claimed to do. A dedicated soundbars testing methodology should’ve been linked here.

TVs

These unreliable reviews are a pattern across many of Good Housekeeping’s categories. Take their TV category for example. TVs received an even worse Trust Rating of 21.70% than their soundbar reviews. Click the “SHOW MORE +” below to read this section about their “Best TV” buying guide.

The title doesn’t make any claims, so there’s nothing particularly out of place or unusual here.

The “How We Test” blurb makes a mountain of promises. Everything from measuring brightness with industry-standard patterns to investigating sound quality to look for “cinema-like” sound is mentioned. GH also notes they care a lot about qualitative performance criteria, in addition to the hard and fast numbers of things like brightness. Ease of use in day-to-day interactions with the TV is also part of their testing process. This is nice, but a TV that is great to use and extremely dim is not a particularly good television.

There isn’t much of use when you get to the actual review text, though. Beyond explanations of how good the TV looks (which is purely qualitative) there’s no data that suggests they actually tested. Mentioning how wide the color space is indicates they tested the gamut – but there’s nothing to suggest they did, because there’s no percentages given or gamuts mentioned. Bright whites, deep blacks – there’s no data to support this and no images either.

Show more +Show less –

The Correction We Demand

The trust Good Housekeeping has spent generations building is at risk here. With a 38.62% average Trust Rating, there’s a clear gap between the testing they claim to do and the evidence they provide.

If they can’t start showing their work—they need to get real about where thorough testing happens and where it doesn’t.

If they can’t provide hard data, they need to state that their review is based on “research” instead of “testing.”

In some categories, like e-bikes and routers, their testing holds up. But in others—like air purifiers and Bluetooth speakers—it’s hard to tell if the products were actually put to the test.

Like Consumer Reports, Good Housekeeping has spent decades earning consumer trust. But leaning on that trust without delivering transparency is a risky move.

They could jeopardize the reputation they’ve built over the last century. And once trust is broken, it’s hard to win back.

5.3. Popular Mechanics

Popular Mechanics has been a staple in science and tech since 1902, known for its no-nonsense, hands-on advice and practical take on how things work.

With a total reach of 17.5 million readers in 2023—split between 11.9 million digital readers and 5.69 million print subscribers—it’s clear that they’ve got a loyal following. Every month, their website pulls in 15.23 million online visitors, all eager for insights on the latest tech, from 3D printers and gaming gear to electric bikes and home gadgets.

But lately, there’s been a shift.

Despite their history and resources, many of Popular Mechanics’ product reviews don’t quite measure up. They often skip the in-depth testing data that today’s readers are looking for, leaving a gap between their testing claims and the proof behind them.

This has landed them a disappointing average Trust Rating of 28.27% across the 24 categories we investigated, raising doubts about the depth of their reviews. For a brand with over a century of credibility, this shift makes you wonder if they’re still delivering the level of rigor that their readers expect.

Popular Mechanics claims to test products across 13 categories, but there is strong evidence of fake testing in 10 of those categories. You can see all 24 categories below along with their classifications:

Ten out of 24 categories with fake testing is a serious breach of trust. While Consumer Reports has a higher percentage of fake-tested categories overall (74%), nearly half of Popular Mechanics’ investigated categories have fraudulent testing.

What do we mean by fraudulent testing in the case of Pop Mech? Let’s look at a few categories, like air conditioners to start.

Air Conditioners

Pop Mech’s air conditioners category earned a terrible 41.35% Trust Rating, the highest out of all their fake tested categories. To test this category well, it’s important to measure how long a unit takes to cool a space in seconds or minutes.

Take a look at their “Best Window Air Conditioner” guide.

Popular Mechanics makes claims to test right in the subheadline of their guide and has a dedicated “Why Trust Us?” blurb that covers their commitment to testing, which we show above.

The buying guide itself even has a small “How We Tested Segment” (the screenshot below) that promises that the air conditioners covered we tested in a real-life setting and involved taking multiple important measurements, like cooling throw and temperature drops.

There’s a minor red flag in their blurb above, however: they note that some models weren’t tested, and to compensate, they “consulted engineers” and “scoured the specs”. The former is interesting – the general public usually can’t speak to engineers, but what an engineer says and what a product does aren’t necessarily aligned. The latter point, “scouring” specs, is something anyone can do and doesn’t involve testing: it’s just reading a spec sheet, often included with the air conditioner itself.

Let’s continue reading the actual reviews on the guide. We provide a screenshot of one part below about the Amana air conditioner. Unfortunately, the segments dedicated to talking about how the AC performed don’t have much quantitative measurements to support their testing claims.

There’s no data showing the temperature readings they supposedly took, nor any information about how long it takes for an A/C to cool a room of a certain size. This is the reason they received a No for our AC testing question (Indicator 8.5) that looks for quantitative tests of cooling and/or dehumidification speed. There aren’t even noise level measurements, just qualitative language saying, in effect, “Yeah, it’s decently quiet.”

For all the claims of measurement, there aren’t any measurements to be found such as.

The spec data is the one place we can find hard numbers, but spec data is freely available to anyone and doesn’t involve any testing.

We also never found a dedicated air conditioner testing methodology, further hinting that their AC testing claims are fraudulent.

Vacuums

Vacuum cleaners is another fake tested category, where Pop Mech earned a mediocre 32.55% Trust Rating. We investigated their “Best Vacuum Cleaners” guide.

Popular Mechanics doesn’t make a testing claim this time, but their dedicated “Why Trust Us?” blurb leads to a page about their commitment to testing.

This time around, Popular Mechanics has dedicated space to the expert that is reviewing the vacuum cleaners, who is also making claims about testing a wide variety of vacuum cleaners. Models that were included on the list include “several” vacuums that the expert personally tested. “Several” is an important word here, because it means that not every vacuum on the list has been personally tested. In fact, “several” don’t even mean that most of them were tested. Including review data to help make picks isn’t bad.

There’s a lot in this image, but all of comes down to one thing: there’s no test data. Despite claims of personally testing the vacuum, there’s nothing in the actual guide to suggest they did. Where’s the data on how much noise the vacuum makes? How much debris it picks up or leave behind? Even the battery life, something that requires nothing more than a stopwatch, isn’t given an exact measurement, and instead is given a rough approximation. Sure, the battery can be variable, but tests can be run multiple times to get average battery life, and we don’t see that here.

Show more +Show less –

So what’s next for Pop Mech?

Pop Mech does a poor job of living up to their testing claims because there isn’t anything on the page that really hammers home that they did their homework and tested everything they said they tested. This ultimately damages Pop Mech’s authority in practical, hands-on advice.

To regain trust, they should commit to sharing clear, quantitative results from their product testing, making sure that their readers know exactly how a product performs. Otherwise, we ask them to change their “testing” claims to “researched”.

Coasting on your reputation as a trusted source and just letting your reviews begin to decay is exploitative, and means you’re just cashing in public trust and goodwill for an easy paycheck.

Fixing this problem doesn’t have to be difficult. But the choice is theirs on how or even if they decide to fix this massive breach of trust.

5.4. WIRED

If you’ve searched for the latest tech trends, you’ve probably run into WIRED. Since 1993, WIRED has made a name for itself as a go-to source for everything from the newest gadgets to deep dives into culture and science.

With 21.81 million visitors a month, WIRED reaches a huge audience, shaping opinions on everything from the latest gadgets to where artificial intelligence is headed.

They cover everything from laptops and gaming gear to electric bikes and smart home devices, making them a go-to for tech enthusiasts.

The problem is, despite their influence, a lot of WIRED’s reviews don’t dig as deep as today’s readers expect. With a 32.36% Trust Rating across 26 categories we investigated, their recommendations don’t exactly inspire confidence.

Their reviews often skip key testing data or even real-world images of the products they claim to test, leaving us wondering just how thoroughly these products were reviewed.

It’s not uncommon to see their reviews skip out on hard testing data or even real-world images of the products they claim to put through their paces.

Over time, WIRED’s focus has changed. Their writing is still engaging, but their product reviews have become more surface-level, leaning heavily on impressions instead of detailed metrics.

That’s why we included them in the Fake Five—their massive online reach gives their reviews weight, but without solid testing data to back them up, it’s hard for readers to fully trust what they recommend.

For a brand that once set the bar in tech journalism, this shift has been frustrating for readers who expect more.

To reclaim the reputation they built their name on is the same as it is for many of the Fake Five: show their work. When they claim to test, provide proof. Photos, units of measurement, real-world undeniable proof you’re actually testing products.

It’s difficult to test thoroughly, but everyone wins when proper tests are performed. Alternatively, they could simply stop claiming to test. Their Trust Rating won’t improve much, but it’s better than lying, and that’s worth something.

Here’s how WIRED stacks up across the 24 categories we investigated.

The results are alarming. Out of 26 categories, 15 fell into the Fake Reviewer classification—a shocking 62.5%. This includes essential products like routers, TVs, and electric bikes. Another 8 categories, like gaming headsets and keyboards, earned a Not Trusted classification.

We do trust them (a little) in 3 categories which managed a Mixed Trust classification: blenders (62.40%), coffee makers (61.07%), and drones (61.07%).

Let’s dive into a few of WIRED’s fake-tested categories to see exactly what fake testing looks like in their reviews.

Gaming Mouse

WIRED earned an abysmal 18.00% Trust Rating in the gaming mouse category, landing them a Fake Tester classification. Our investigation focused on their “Best Mouse” guide (screenshotted below), which revealed significant trust issues.

The authors Eric Ravenscraft and Jaina Grey make a testing claim right in the subheadline above. Immediately, we expect to find test results in the guide. But as we read through the guide, we can’t find any test results.

In the highlighted part above, those are specs, which are always great to include, but specs don’t indicate you tested. Anybody can get them from a product description or the back of the box.

As we read further down the guide, the highlighted parts below are close to a test – after all, battery life is extremely important for wireless mice.

However, the fact that the language around the time is so evasive leads us to have doubts. If you’re measuring battery life as a proper test, you’d have not only the time in hours but also minutes. This is what constitutes a good, rigorous test: getting good data that is concrete, and not so approximate. Unfortunately, this is also the battery life claimed by the manufacturer, which is commonly a “best case” estimate under specific conditions that the user might not be able to replicate. Including information like the response time but no proof you tested it also doesn’t help build a case for having actually performed any real testing.

The problem with WIRED’s buying guide is that there’s nothing to support their testing claims. If these mice were indeed tested, they’d have concrete battery life, click latency, DPI tests, and software customization covered, but we don’t get test data for these criteria, just specs. Mentioning the wireless receiver boosts the polling rate just doesn’t cut it, because there’s no explanation of how they got this data. Buying guides tend to be brief, but they can link out to reviews or test data to support the claims without sacrificing brevity.

Webcams

Let’s look at WIRED’s webcam reviews, another fraudulent category. This one’s trust rating wasn’t as low as gaming mice, but it’s still a failing score (30.40%).

The Insta360 Link review we investigated fell short in several areas.

The top of the page doesn’t show us any testing claims, just a basic subheadline, and a nice opening image.

The testing claims roll in once we hit the opening paragraph, and they’re even comparative in nature, with the testing claims suggesting the camera is among the nicest of the ones they’ve tested. The pros section suggests testing too, with key performance criteria mentioned. Despite what the “test webcams” link might have you think in context, it’s actually a link to a “best webcam” guide, not to a testing methodology.

Multiple highlighted portions in this paragraph all suggest not only usage but clear testing. The autofocus in particular, one of the most important aspects of a webcam, is put through its paces and does an excellent job of maintaining focus up to 4 inch away – or so the reviewer claims. But there’s no imagery to showcase this.

Instead of imagery that gives us an idea of how the camera performs (for example, showing off the excellent autofocus), we instead just get stock images from the manufacturer. This doesn’t build a convincing case for the testing claims that Wired is making in this review, and it casts serious doubt over the whole review. While the text suggests that the webcam may have been used, the total lack of any kind of testing imagery and data makes it very hard to believe.

Show more +Show less –

Conclusion

For a brand that’s all about tech deep-dives, WIRED has some serious issues in how it backs up its product reviews, and with its 32.36% Trust Rating, the gaps are starting to show.

To get back on track, WIRED should bringing more transparency into their testing—think real photos (without the unhelpful colorful backgrounds), hard data, named equipment, and detailed testing processes.

This would help them reconnect with readers who want the facts to make smarter buying decisions.

5.5. Forbes

Forbes, founded in 1917 by B.C. Forbes, has been a cornerstone of financial journalism for over a century, renowned for its trustworthy coverage of finance, industry, and business.

The magazine earned credibility with business professionals through initiatives like the “Forbes Richest 400” and by maintaining high standards of factual accuracy.

However, over the past five years, Forbes made a calculated move to leverage its brand equity and trust to gain prominent placement in Google’s search results, expanding into areas like “best CBD gummies” and “best gaming TVs.”

This strategy, known as “parasite SEO,” has led to reviews that lack the depth and expertise Forbes is known for, earning them a terrible Publication Trust Rating of 34.96% (out of the 27 categories we investigated) that raises concerns about the credibility of their non-financial content.

With 65M monthly visitors, Forbes lands a Fake Reviewer Classification with a shocking 9 categories featuring faked testing out of the 27:

Their Trust Rating reflects this poor performance: at 34.62%, even if they cleaned up their act, they’d still be deep in the red and would have a long way to go to get themselves to a more respectable classification.

Too often is Forbes claiming to test without actually backing up their test claims, and if they want their product reviews to have the same authority as their financial coverage, there’s a lot of work to be done.

Testing, providing imagery to prove testing, real measurements, solid analysis – it’s a hard road to legitimacy, but worth walking it when everyone stands to gain from it.

Forbes has a lot of ground to cover though – not only do they have a substantial number of categories they’re faking, they’re simply not in the majority of the categories they cover with their reviews, which means they have to ramp up testing across the board.

Alternatively, they could simply stop claiming to test altogether and instead note that they’re publishing “first impressions” reviews or simply research reviews based on data from around the web. They’ll have stopped lying, but they won’t earn substantial a Trust Rating for doing so.

TVs

Forbes’ TV reviews earned a 18.20% Trust Rating, placing this category squarely in the Fake Tester category. To uncover why, we examined their “Best Gaming TVs” guide (featured below), which revealed glaring issues in trustworthiness.

This testing claim is right in the title, front and center, so everyone can see it. Let’s keep scrolling down to get into the individual reviews.

The highlighted text above is worrying. Testing is said multiple times, but in the same breath, Forbes also says that LG doesn’t share what the actual nits measurement is. Part of testing is to do that yourself – grab a colorimeter and measure the actual brightness. Publications that perform rigorous testing have the equipment to test, but it is clear from this text that Forbes isn’t actually testing – they’re just using the TV.

Methodology is huge for testing – it’s how you get consistent results and provide meaningful information to the reader.

The lack of numbers offered above is the first red flag. While the inclusion of a photo of the distortion is extremely helpful and absolutely a step in the right direction, the important thing about viewing angles is the angle. Showing that distortion can occur is good – but not giving the actual angle this happens at is a major misstep.

Now let’s move onto the “How I Tested The Best Gaming TVs” section that we screenshotted below. Here you get more claims about testing and expertise here, as well as a few notes on what the reviewer finds important: great picture, solid refresh rate and console compatibility, along with good audio quality.

The issue is that “great picture” is a multi-faceted thing. It’s an entire category of performance, with multiple criteria under it that all have an impact on the overall picture quality. Brightness, color gamut, contrast… the list goes on, and it’s a very important list for getting a complete “picture” on picture quality.

The highlighted segments below are huge red flags. There’s just no data in the previous text of the review to really warrant to support the claims being made.

Things like color gamut, brightness, contrast ratio, and EOTF are all testable, measurable and important, but none of them are mentioned in the review. Instead, we get confirmation that specs were cross-checked and warranties were looked at, neither of which constitute an actual test.

Arguably, the most concerning part is the claim that not only is this testing, but this testing is enough to recommend that the televisions will last. Longevity tests can’t be done in an afternoon – they take time; months at the minimum, and years ideally. There’s no doubt Forbes actually used the TVs they got – there’s plenty of photo evidence of them being used. But they didn’t test them at all.

Gaming Headsets

Another category with significant signs of fake testing is gaming headsets, which earned a 30.60% trust rating. Let’s look at their gaming headset buying guide below.

The testing claim from Forbes is (once again) right in the title of the post. Forbes even makes the claim that they’ve put these headsets through their paces. Unfortunately, using a headset for hours isjn’t quite the same as testing it – at least not entirely. There’s plenty you can learn about from a headset by using it, especially given how much things like sound are a matter of taste, but other things like maximum volume and latency are firmly in the realm of measured testing, not simply using a headset while you play a few matches of CoD.

The first red flag comes up with the battery life. After stating how important battery life is, we simply get estimates on battery life, instead of actual testing data that shows how long the battery lasted. And for how much the reviewer talked about how important so many factors of the headset were, to get not only an approximation of the battery life, but also no further concrete numbers (like maximum volume) is disheartening.

Ultimately, the biggest issue is the lack of measurements from Forbes. For all the subjective qualities a headset has (microphone quality, sound quality, comfort, feel) there are multiple objective qualities that require testing to determine. Battery life, latency, and range are all objectively measurable, but no data is provided. How far can you go with the headset before it cuts out? Without the data, it’s hard to say that Forbes actually tested any of the headsets it claims to have spent so much time on – though they definitely did use them. Even when Forbes seems to be providing an actual measurement (like charge time) the numbers match up one to one with what’s listed in a spec sheet from HyperX.

Show more +Show less –

Conclusion

Simply put, Forbes is not worth trusting until they can get real testing results in front of readers and actually deliver on their claims of testing. They could also simply remove references to testing from categories where they were found to be faking it, the less you test, the less you can climb.

Top 8 Trusted Broad Publications

The Broad group covers 15 or more product categories, which provides more opportunities to “mess up” in testing practices, like what happened with Wirecutter, Which? and PCMag. This is likely why we only have 8 viable top contenders in this group—there’s simply more room for inconsistencies to surface.

While we discussed the top 3 earlier, some publications in the Broad group still have room for improvement. Tom’s Hardware, Tom’s Guide, and Tech Pro Journal received Mixed Trust ratings of 67.79%, 65.66%, and 63.35%, respectively. While they secured spots on the top trusted leaderboard, their reviews often fall short of the consistency and transparency readers expect across the categories we investigated.

However, this makes the achievements of the leaders even more impressive. At the top of the Broad group is RTINGS, our most trusted publication with an outstanding 99.58% Trust Rating. In a group as challenging as this one, where consistency is hard to maintain across 16 or more categories, RTINGS is a clear leader that proves it’s possible to thoroughly test and be consistent about it. Their commitment to thorough, detailed testing (screenshotted below) sets a high standard that few can match.

As you can see above and below, RTINGs includes multiple real world photos of the Samsung S90C TV they review in their testing labs plus images of the testing equipment being used.

In this image above, they include several quantifiable test results they collected for a single criterion like brightness. If you visit their Testing Methodology for brightness, you’ll learn that they use a Konica Minolta LS-100 Luminance Meter to obtain their measurements. And they have a Testing Methodology for practically every criteria they test, like color gamut, input lag, etc.

As we’ve seen, broad publications face unique challenges, tackling 15 or more product categories while striving for consistency.

Now, let’s turn our attention to the Top 10 Trusted Niche Publications, where specialization plays a key role in building trust.

Top 10 Trusted Niche Publications

The top 10 trusted niche publications showcase the strength of specialization, excelling across 3–15 categories with consistency and trust. This group tackled another challenge by balancing testing depth within a larger scope than hyperniche sites in order to secure a spot in the top 10. Despite one Fake Reviewer exclusion, we still had enough niche publications to qualify for the top 10.

After leaders like HouseFresh, E Ride Hero, and Sound Guys, publications like AV Forums (82.15%) and Food Network (81.85%) highlight excellence in focused areas like AV equipment and food.

Rounding out the list, BabyGearLab (72.90%) and AnandTech (71.40%) demonstrate that niche sites can maintain trust even with technical or everyday essentials. This group proves that success comes from mastering multiple categories, balancing specialization with consistency.

The top testers in the niche group are evaluated using the same 55-indicator framework as the broad and hyperniche groups. This means we’re looking for consistent testing evidence across the board, such as measured test results, testing charts, real images, named testing equipment, etc. Sound Guys demonstrated a thorough testing approach in the headphones category, where they earned a 90.50% Trust Rating.

Take their headphone attenuation test below, for example.

The screenshot above from this AirPods Pro review shows how Sound Guys measures attenuation in decibels (dB), offering clear insights into a headphone’s noise isolation capabilities. This precise dB measurement demonstrates how much ambient sound is blocked, providing users with a quieter, more immersive listening experience.

With their specialized focus and commitment to transparent testing, the top 10 niche publications prove that performing testing depth across a moderate range of categories is achievable.

Now, let’s narrow the lens even further and explore the top 10 Trusted Hyper-Niche Publications, where mastery in 1–2 categories sets these sites apart.

Top 10 Trusted “Hyper-Niche” (or Specialized) Publications

HyperNiche publications focus on just 1–2 specific categories, making them the most specialized group we analyzed. This narrow scope allows these sites to demonstrate unmatched depth and expertise in their chosen areas, from VPNs to electric scooters to air purifiers.

With fewer categories to cover, hyperniche publications can devote their resources to thorough testing and transparency, often setting the gold standard for what trusted reviews should look like.

Take Top 10 VPN and VPN Mentor as examples. Both excel in VPN reviews, earning Trust Ratings of 102.20% and 97.45%, respectively. Their detailed performance metrics and testing transparency set them apart, proving that hyper-focus pays off. Similarly, Electric Scooter Guide and Air Purifier First specialize in highly specific categories, earning their spots by going deep where it counts.

What’s striking is how these publications demonstrate consistent excellence, even in categories where testing can be highly technical. For instance, Aniwaa brings precision to 3D printing reviews, while TFT Central dives into consumer electronics with thorough testing protocols. This attention to detail not only builds trust but also sets a benchmark for how hyperniche reviews should be done.

All hyperniche sites are held to the same 55-indicator evaluation framework as every other group, and the best of them consistently rise to the challenge. For example, Top 10 VPN provides detailed testing data, such as recorded download speed measurements (Mbps) in their ExpressVPN review, offering clear, actionable insights in their VPN comparisons.

Their reviews are effective, clear, and backed by real data—a trend that continues across the most trusted hyperniche publications.

The top 10 hyperniche publications prove that specialization is one path to trustworthiness. When you focus on doing one thing exceptionally well, you deliver value that readers trust—and return for time and again.

Looking at our Trust Rating results across all 496 sites, a pattern emerges across the groups: a publication’s scope plays a critical role in determining its trustworthiness.

Success Rate by Scope

While we investigated less hyperniche publications versus the broad and niche groups, the hyperniche groups had a higher success rate out of any group.

Out of the 101 hyperniche publications we investigated, 17 publications surpassed the 60% Trust Rating benchmark—a success rate of 16.8%. While this may seem low, it exceeds the success rates of broader focus groups.

For comparison, only 25 out of 232 niche publications passed (10.8% success rate), and 14 out of 163 broad publications (8.6% success rate) passed.

The higher success rate of the hyperniche group is likely a direct result of their narrow focus on just one or two categories, allowing for deeper expertise and more reliable reviews. So there’s less room to “mess up” and fake test the products you review.

And it cascades down the groups. Niche publications have the second highest success rate, and broad publications have the lowest success rate. This is due to having many more categories, so they have a higher chance at being less consistent in thorough testing across multiple categories.

As for the Fake Tester distribution by Scope:

• We had 22 Fake Testers out of 101 hyperniche publications (21.78%).
• 98 out of 232 niche publications were Fake Tetsers (42.24%).
• 104 out of 164 broad publications were Fake Testers (63.41%).

These numbers highlight a critical takeaway: the broader the scope, the harder it is to uphold trustworthiness.

Hyperniche sites demonstrate that focus and specialization often lead to higher-quality reviews, while broad publications face an uphill battle in delivering consistent and reliable testing.

That said, there are some exceptions to this takeaway. Broad-focused websites like RTINGS prove it’s possible to achieve Highly Trusted status, or Your Best Digs and TechGearLab show that they can be Trusted as well thanks to consistent, high-quality reviews. These examples emphasize that while patterns exist, trust ultimately comes down to thorough testing and transparency.

Now, let’s shift gears and explore the least trusted publications by scope and try to identify any patterns.

Top 10 Untrustworthy Broad Publications

Broad publications typically cover 16 or more categories, giving them significant reach and influence over a vast array of consumer decisions. However, with such a wide scope comes the challenge of maintaining consistency and transparency across every category. The Top 10 failed to meet this challenge, with poor testing practices, fake reviews, and a lack of evidence undermining their credibility.

These sites, spanning everything from tech to lifestyle to general news, demonstrate how a lack of rigor across multiple categories can lead to widespread mistrust. Let’s take a closer look at how these publications fell short in upholding standards across their broad focus.

• While the Top 3, Cool Material (0.00%), HackerNoon (3.60%), and Reliant.co.uk (4.20%), hit rock bottom, the rest of the list includes big names with serious trust issues.
• The Economic Times (5.30%) and The Sacramento Bee (5.57%) are well-known news outlets, yet their reviews lack transparency. The Sacramento Bee even earned a Fake Reviewer classification, showing how even established brands can mislead readers.
• Good Morning America (6.45%) is a household name, but its product reviews fall flat. Without credible testing to back them up, trust takes a hit.
• In tech, Reset Anything (6.30%) and Perform Wireless (6.85%) claim expertise but fail to deliver. Both earned Fake Reviewer classifications for lacking testing proof.
• Even popular eCommerce and lifestyle sites like HT Shop Now (5.70%) and Frenz Lifestyle Hub (6.85%) struggle with consistency. Their broad focus exposes readers to questionable recommendations across categories.

Out of the Top 10 Untrustworthy Broad Publications, 50% were classified as Fake Reviewers, and the other 50% were marked as Not Trusted. Additionally, 50% of these sites are independently owned, highlighting that independence doesn’t necessarily equate to trustworthiness in the Broad group.

Top 11 Untrustworthy Niche Publications (because of a tie)

Niche publications typically focus on 3 to 15 categories, making them more specialized than broad publications but less narrowly focused than hyper-niche sites. This balance offers them a unique opportunity: they can dive deeper into specific topics while still appealing to a broader audience. However, maintaining consistency across even a handful of categories can be challenging.

These publications demonstrate what happens when specialization doesn’t translate into trustworthiness. From Fake Reviewer classifications to a lack of transparency in testing, their shortcomings undermine their ability to deliver reliable recommendations.

• Reviewnery (0.00%) stands out as the least trustworthy niche site in our analysis. With no evidence of reliable testing or transparency, it fails to meet even the lowest expectations.
• LoLVVV (2.50%) and Antenna Junkies (3.25%) are also among the worst offenders. Both earned Fake Reviewer classifications, reflecting a lack of credible testing practices despite their focus on gaming and tech reviews.
• GenderLess Voice (4.00%) represents a unique niche in voice training but struggles with credibility. As a collaborative effort, its lack of consistent testing protocols leaves readers questioning its reliability.
• Removu (4.35%) and iOSHacker (5.25%) fail to deliver on their tech-focused promises. Both sites lack transparency and testing evidence, earning their places on this untrustworthy list.
• The Gadget Nerds (5.45%) and Architizer (5.75%) fall short in their respective niches of tech and architecture. While their specialized focus should enable deeper insights, their low Trust Ratings suggest otherwise.
• Fizzness Shizzness (6.05%) and Wilderness Today (6.10%) round out the list alongside Tech Junkie (6.10%). These sites highlight the ongoing challenge of maintaining credibility in niche markets, where readers expect expertise but often receive inconsistent or misleading information.

These results show that niche sites, while smaller in scope than broad publications, still face significant challenges in delivering trustworthy reviews. Specialization alone isn’t enough—without transparency and rigorous testing, even niche publications can fall flat.

Out of the Top 11 Untrustworthy Niche Publications, 36% were classified as Fake Reviewers, and 64% were marked as Not Trusted. Notably, 73% of these sites are independently owned, showing that independence alone doesn’t guarantee credibility either in the Niche group.

Top 10 Untrusted “Hyper-Niche” (or Specialized) Publications

Hyperniche publications focus on just one or two specific categories, which should allow for detailed, high-quality reviews. However, as this list of the Top 10 Untrustworthy Hyperniche Publications shows, specialization alone doesn’t guarantee trustworthiness.

• TurboFuture (2.50%) earns the dubious honor of being the least trustworthy hyperniche site, flagged as a Fake Reviewer with no evidence of credible testing.
• Other hyper-focused sites like Best Double DIN Head Unit (2.85%) and FPS Champion (3.65%) fail to deliver reliable reviews, despite their narrow scope in automotive and gaming categories, respectively.
• Interestingly, WGB (3.60%) and Best Airpurifiers (4.20%) operate in technical categories where precision is crucial, yet both fall short of providing measurable, transparent testing.
• The majority of these sites—70%—are independently owned, including Silvia Pan and The PC Wire. This high independence rate underscores that autonomy alone isn’t enough to ensure quality or trustworthiness.
• At the higher end of this untrustworthy list, Aspire360 (6.05%) and Audio Direct (6.10%) still failed to provide the consistency and transparency necessary to gain reader trust.

Among the Top 10 Untrustworthy Hyperniche Publications, 10% were classified as Fake Reviewers, while the remaining 90% were marked as Not Trusted. Additionally, 70% of these publications are independently owned, highlighting that independence alone doesn’t guarantee trustworthiness.

Overall while examining our top 10 untrustworthy publications across the three scope groups, it appears that independence alone doesn’t guarantee trust.

But we noticed a pattern that most of the Highly Trusted and Trusted publications are independent, which we explore further in the next section.