[Jamie Pearson]

http://www.thecleanzine.com/pages8/Rug_Doctor_earns_accolades.html

[Joe H]

I like it....................

"Being the only consumer-use carpet cleaning system with the CRI's Platinum Seal of Approval is about as significant as it gets in our industry. To be rated above all other consumer carpet cleaning systems, and on par, or even better, than many professional, truck-mounted cleaning systems is a great feather in our cap," says Tim Wall, president and chief executive officer of Rug Doctor.

In the hands of a good operator and the right cleaning solutions they probably do a good job. Problem comes when Mr or Mrs householder gets hold of it.

[Dennis]

Wait for the ad to finish.

http://dai.ly/cqANx4

[Paul Heath]

Are they being serious. Who are these people that carried the test for them get these awards??? Have our own "industry setting standards" guys carried out tests etc??

[Jamie Pearson]

This video was what came to mind when I saw the above article.

[Linds Russell]

Great video.

Surely they can't be serious about the article!

[Tony Gill Carpet Smart]

Dennis  BRILLIANT

Tony

[clinton]

Deniss lol

Wonder were they  get all this info from :

[Buckland]

Thie is just ridiculous - I think with respect to all other contribs to this thread that some of you have been taken in by a combination of the GH seal of approval (they do I believe SELL their seal of approval - didnt they give a SOA to 1001) and slick marketing in a spurious demo video that could easily have been tricked up to produce the right result - the whole thing looks very odd to me - its as if a layer of soot or something has been applied dry to the sample and then the various machines have been dragged or pushed across the surface - when has any normally soiled carpet looked like that before and during a clean - its not a real world test and for them to claim that a rugdoctor is as good or better than a truckmount is just wishful thinking - I think I will rent one and do my own demo to show how indadequate they really are... I take Joe's point about the operator error.

We cant take this lying down