# Hmm another irritation



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

Many know my feelings on various websites that claim to rate pet foods with very little experience or even valid schemes. This website rates those websites lol I found it interesting that the sites that have actual ratings from users with actual experiences with products scored lower. Why is it that experiences with an actual product are viewed in a lesser light than these people who simple look at a panel and judge a food based on nothing but words?

Dog Food Review Ratings

I do happen to like the #1 listed site Dogfoodadvisor.com. The site seems fair and level headed and all the foods I am interested in did score well.

The second listed site is to a site with nothing but a bunch of links to other places. I do not know if the site changed or they just felt for some reason a site like that deserved a high rating? Its stupid in any event.

Number 3 is dogaware.com. I absolutely love this site. It is truthful, educated and very knowledgeable and not full of the propaganda you see on other sites. I would have given it 5 stars myself.

Number four is dogfoodreviews.com I actually like this site quite a bit. They have articles debunking popular rumors, realistic reviews as well as adding and allowing customer reviews.... they need more products listed but this one I would support.

Five is Whole dog journal. Eh I like many of their articles but often disagree with their pet food articles and yearly list.

Number six is truthaboutpetfood.com.....many know I absolutely hate this site. I disagree with this woman in 90% of her articles and find her to be unaware and uneducated about many things that she chooses to write about. She claims so much knowledge and inside information but this is not reflected in her articles..... she of course got a four star credibility rating. Has anyone ever challenged this woman??

Number seven is out beloved dogfoodchat....we got a 3 star rating...wth? I find the articles on the page wonderful and for the most part informative, there are a few errors in some information but they are mostly unimportant. The forum is of course priceless imo.

Number 8 is goodguide.com they got a 3 star rating. I found this site funny as I can't figure out their rating method as most foods people here would grade as high were in the bottom rated and foods that people here would hate are rated high....very odd. How did this site get the same rating as dogfoodchat?

I'll skip to number 11 rateitall.com it was given a 3star as well. I happen to like this site for all of the user ratings and comments you can read. They are reveling imo I tend to disregard the stars as people can just go down the list and click 1 star on foods they hate for no reason other than the propaganda they have read and this throws off the stars from actual users who score a food high. Reading the user comments are very helpful imo and I have posted on this site regularly.

Number 12 is onlynaturalpet.com I love this site and have ordered from them regularly but I am puzzled as to why they were included in this dog food review list and given a 3 star. They only carry certain products they approve off although users can leave reviews. I believe users of this forum get a discount if you click through the forum link to their site. This is where I order my DMG from.

Number 13 is dogfoodanalysis.com I really dislike this site, it got a 3 start rating but I would have rated it lower as the rating is based on credibility. The dentist that owns this site knows nothing about pet food nor pet nutrition and only grades foods based on his understanding of the ingredient panel and his invented way of determining meat content which can only be determined by asking the company or being there to see what is put in. Ingredient lists being in one place can be convenient but only as long as they stay current. The best foods will always be tweaking their products so sites like this go out of date easily especially with the number of products he lists. I always check manufacturer sites for current ingredient panels.

Number 14? dogfoodscoop.com ummm I would never recommend this site. Their reviews are all over the place. They give 1 "scoop" to Evo and 0 "scoops" to Bil Jac essentially comparing it to Beneful....weird

Number 16 is NJBoxers.com this got a 2 star rating for crying out loud. This is a very informative site for raw feeding and the low rating just does not make any sense whatsoever imo, I would recommend this site in a heartbeat.

I wont go further on the list... I would like to add a few though..

http://www.petdiets.com some may not like this site but it is run by board certified veterinary nutritionists. Of course there are things people will not like that they have written but such is on other sites of opposing views. This site is helpful to many people.

I have also always listed Great Dane Lady | Allergies in Dogs, Dog Nutrition, HOD. Growth Problems in Dogs, Yeast, Knuckling Over, Bowed Legs in Dogs as a must give link. All of my puppy buyers were given printouts from Linda's site as well as the link to her site. She seems to be being forgotten but IMO we must not let this happen as there is a wealth of information on her site.

Anyway, what do others think about these ratings? What is your favorite dog food review website?


----------



## karisma11 (Feb 13, 2011)

I think anecdotal reports of how a dog "did" on an individual food are worthless. There is far too much individual variability between dogs, personal bias, and various uncontrolled and unrelated factors to make accurate comparisons. I would rather see macronutrient and micronutrient comparisons and ingredients to make a final decision on where to start with my personal pet, then try that and see how he likes it and how he seems to do as an individual. I'm guessing that's why those sites rated lower (as they should).


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

Well when there are hundreds of "anecdotal" reports from owners actually using a product it is not something to just throw away. If a product does not work it is worthless regardless of the profiles and ingredient list. Sites that rate a food very high simply because the ingredient panel pleases them means nothing to me at all. That was the point of the manufacturer making the food the way they did. I want products that are constructed to work, that give results that are known over and over again. For instance Blackwood foods. On rateitall many people reported excellent results and were thrilled with the products. Then came the jerks that had never even seen the product nor used it claiming the products to be garbage, they do this because they think they can read an ingredient profile and magically know that a food is good or bad. That is BS, pure BS. Through experience there are foods I will use and recommend and ones I will not. It is my experience overall that influences my opinion on a product....not some review of it's ingredient panel. 

Also realize these reviews based on reading the ingredient panel are also anecdotal. They are usually not based on any fact at all, having many myths influencing them and just plain incorrect information.


----------



## karisma11 (Feb 13, 2011)

Kibblelady said:


> Also realize these reviews based on reading the ingredient panel are also anecdotal. They are usually not based on any fact at all, having many myths influencing them and just plain incorrect information.


That's not what anecdotal means. Anecdotes are based on personal experience. Analyzing feed ingredients and nutrient profiles are not anecdotal. I do agree with you that there are many myths and inaccuracies influencing those websites that rate foods based on ingredient lists, which is why I don't go by dog food rating websites at all :smile:


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

karisma11 said:


> That's not what anecdotal means. Anecdotes are based on personal experience. Analyzing feed ingredients and nutrient profiles are not anecdotal. I do agree with you that there are many myths and inaccuracies influencing those websites that rate foods based on ingredient lists, which is why I don't go by dog food rating websites at all :smile:


I do know what anecdotal means. When someone looks at an ingredient panel, like many here do, they have very limited information on what is actually there. They base their opinion on what they think these things are and what they mean and come to a conclusion. For instance my opinion on many products is very different from many people on this board why? Because I actually research the process and what the ingredients actually are, where they are purchased etc... for instance brewers rice, what do many people on this board think this is? They think it is rice left over from the brewing of beer. This is incorrect. Brewers rice is simply rice that is not attractive enough to go into a bag of rice for purchase in a food store for humans, people would reject it. It contains broken kernels etc throughout history breweries have purchased this rice because it is simply cheaper for them to buy than the rice that is headed for packaging for a food store....hence it has been called "brewer's rice." But, some will see that ingredient and through their knowledge and experience will see it as a poor quality ingredient when it simply isn't. It's nutritional panel and use nutritionally is no different than its more beautiful brothers and sisters that were not broken in the milling process. Make sense?

_an·ec·do·tal_/ˌanikˈdōtl/
Adjective:


(of an account) Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
Characterized by or fond of telling anecdotes.


<tbody>

</tbody>

<tbody>

</tbody>


----------



## karisma11 (Feb 13, 2011)

I'm not really sure why you are going off in that direction- it really has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Anecdote: Someone's dog did well on Brand X. 
My interpretation: meaningless

Scientific approach: Brand X has A% protein, B% fat, etc, and ingredients Q,R,S... 
My interpretation: Meaningful place to start

I completely disregard how websites rate foods, as there is too much misinformation (corn is the devil...). As a 4th year vet student with a scientific background, I prefer a scientific approach :smile:


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

karisma11 said:


> I'm not really sure why you are going off in that direction- it really has nothing to do with what I was saying.
> 
> Anecdote: Someone's dog did well on Brand X.
> My interpretation: meaningless
> ...


Agreed, testing, background of the users of a food, experience of the company all critical. Ingredients as discussed on many webistes are just marketing.

There is never one fact when it comes to demonization of something like corn, by products, beet pulp, K3, etc. Despite evidence to the contrary there is never any respect for proven science. I was reading where Karen Becker was trashing Porcine Plasma despite at least 40 peer reviews studies and field use all over the world that it is extremely valuable to animals. Figure that one out.

But, when it comes to herbs, berries, coconut oil and every other crazy ingredient, there is "always" proof because someone believes it is so.

As a vet it must drive you crazy when you read grains cause allergies. There is so much data available to the contrary, you wonder how people can still believe that crap.


----------



## karisma11 (Feb 13, 2011)

You have nailed it! That's why I don't put much value on anecdotes. I think any medical professional can be driven crazy by all the misinformation that is available, however I admit I am also guilty of doing my own internet "research" and self-diagnosing. I do try to avoid it though and consult with real medical professionals when necessary!


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

Personally I think people do themselves a disservice if they disregard the experiences of others on a product. These experiences tend to have obvious trends (that's scientific  ) that can assist people in selecting a product. Seeing some highly rated, highly recommended foods perform poorly over and over again tells me something as does that poorly rated food that produces awesome results


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

schism said:


> I like a combination of anecdotal and scientific points of view! I don't want to side with one or the other



That's a healthy attitude and I totally agree with you.


----------



## imthemonkey (Aug 8, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> I was reading where Karen Becker was trashing Porcine Plasma despite at least 40 peer reviews studies and field use all over the world that it is extremely valuable to animals. Figure that one out.


I think you're simplifying that a little too much. At least the article i saw of her mentioning Porcine Plasma is her pointing out that it MAY be used to hide inferior raw products and increase palatability. I would bet Dr Tim uses high quality raw ingredients and he doesn't add it just to increase palatibility. Karen recognizes that dogs would eat blood in the wild but is also a firm believe that kibble isn't a species appropriate diet. A lot of us recognize that but a lot of us still use kibble most of the time. The quality of plasma used in kibble in canned foods probably varies a lot too so it is important to trust the company.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

imthemonkey said:


> I think you're simplifying that a little too much. At least the article i saw of her mentioning Porcine Plasma is her pointing out that it MAY be used to hide inferior raw products and increase palatability. I would bet Dr Tim uses high quality raw ingredients and he doesn't add it just to increase palatibility. Karen recognizes that dogs would eat blood in the wild but is also a firm believe that kibble isn't a species appropriate diet. A lot of us recognize that but a lot of us still use kibble most of the time. The quality of plasma used in kibble in canned foods probably varies a lot too so it is important to trust the company.


It's what she isn't saying more than what she is saying. You have to be slippery and with no square corners to be a good marketeer. The best way to do that is to say as little as possible but include what serves your purpose.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

karisma11 said:


> Anecdote: Someone's dog did well on Brand X.
> My interpretation: meaningless
> 
> Scientific approach: Brand X has A% protein, B% fat, etc, and ingredients Q,R,S...
> ...


Ok but sounds a little square to me. Be discerning and evaluate, don't thrash everything automatically as meaningless. The part about rating sites we agree on. Should be used more like a Rolodex if you ask me. Anyways, no one goes through life without relying on anecdotal information. When I would like to get my hands on a bag of Dr Tims food it's not because I have seen first hand how dogs do on it nor is it because it's panel looks so more "sexy" than a myriad of other options. It's because of a combination of anecdotal information from not 1, not 5 but numerous users who I regard as knowledgeable about canine nutrition recommends it, Tim Hunt's experience in performance dogs circles and my own knowledge about dog food formulations (the panel) for various uses. If I solely where to evaluate GA panels and macro/micro nutrient composition I would probably still only be halfway through Royal-Canin's product lineup. Anecdotal evidence is important in life and also in science. It's all about triage. When looking for a new car it's probably a bad idea to listen to the neighborhood panhandler recommending a Daewoo because the last one who slipped him a buck drove one. Just my two cents.


----------



## karisma11 (Feb 13, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Ok but sounds a little square to me. Be discerning and evaluate, don't thrash everything automatically as meaningless. The part about rating sites we agree on. Should be used more like a Rolodex if you ask me. Anyways, no one goes through life without relying on anecdotal information. When I would like to get my hands on a bag of Dr Tims food it's not because I have seen first hand how dogs do on it nor is it because it's panel looks so more "sexy" than a myriad of other options. It's because of a combination of anecdotal information from not 1, not 5 but numerous users who I regard as knowledgeable about canine nutrition recommends it, Tim Hunt's experience in performance dogs circles and my own knowledge about dog food formulations (the panel) for various uses. If I solely where to evaluate GA panels and macro/micro nutrient composition I would probably still only be halfway through Royal-Canin's product lineup. Anecdotal evidence is important in life and also in science. It's all about triage. When looking for a new car it's probably a bad idea to listen to the neighborhood panhandler recommending a Daewoo because the last one who slipped him a buck drove one. Just my two cents.


I'm totally square :smile: I'm logical almost to a fault. It doesn't make sense to use anecdotes when it comes to food because there is too much individual variation. I know a lot of people that are allergic to nuts- does that mean I should avoid them? Hardly. I prefer to analyze, then to try. To each their own!


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

DaViking said:


> It's what she isn't saying more than what she is saying. You have to be slippery and with no square corners to be a good marketeer. The best way to do that is to say as little as possible but include what serves your purpose.


Exactly, she is a sensationalist, that is how you mislead and influence people. A thing like Porcine Plasma is a perfect sounding board because it get right under the skin of people that think pets are little babies. 

Oh no my baby is eating pigs blood!!!


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

karisma11 said:


> I'm totally square :smile: I'm logical almost to a fault. It doesn't make sense to use anecdotes when it comes to food because there is too much individual variation. I know a lot of people that are allergic to nuts- does that mean I should avoid them? Hardly. I prefer to analyze, then to try. To each their own!


You wouldn't be a very good student of the pythagorean school then :smile:
Just make sure you don't get caught in an endless cycle of having to "re-learn" what others already have learned.


----------



## tem_sat (Jun 20, 2010)

Kibblelady said:


> Number 13 is dogfoodanalysis.com I really dislike this site, it got a 3 start rating but I would have rated it lower as the rating is based on credibility. The dentist that owns this site knows nothing about pet food nor pet nutrition and only grades foods based on his understanding of the ingredient panel and his invented way of determining meat content which can only be determined by asking the company or being there to see what is put in. Ingredient lists being in one place can be convenient but only as long as they stay current.


Dog Food Advisor is owned by the dentist, not Dog Food Analysis.

See: About the Dog Food Advisor


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Last time I checked, DFA was a dead website and not updating. It is also filled with factual errors.


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

I love Dr. Becker.


----------

