I strongly disagree. ConsumerSearch is SEO'd the same way Stack Overflow is: it's designed to capture search ranking with valuable content. It's a useable and useful site.
I hadn't come across ConsumerSearch before. Its content for the example 'dishwashers' query isn't that impressive, but isn't that evil, either. They're trying to be useful, but the busy, cramped, SEO- and AdSense-optimized layout makes its excerpting/summarization of other reviews very hard to trust.
Thus it's a lot like other About.com sites -- sometimes useful, until everyone else gets into the same 'landing page' game. Then they're all just variated regurgitation of the same C&P'd wisdom from elsewhere.
It aggregates and summarizes reviews from Consumer Reports, a bunch of other resources, and Amazon.com user reviews, breaks products down into three categories, and provides a top recommendation for each, runners up, and a methodology.
It's indistinguishable from what a pennies-per-paragraph SEO contractor might write, just excerpting and summarizing arbitrary reviews from other sources, chiefly as crawler-fodder.
It might be a wise synthesis of key points from many other reviews... but it'd take a while to earn that reputation as a trusted voice. In the meantime, its design is not giving me signals of reliability, though I can see it has those aspirations (from its 'about' page).
If it were signed copy, more clearly dated, with some quantitative indicators they'd done deeper research, it'd come closer to impressive for me. But, then the source sites might object about the quantity of material excepted.
How valuable is a review-of-reviews, by an unnamed someone who hasn't themselves ever tried the product?
I could believe that done right the review-of-reviews approach could theoretically provide some value. But it veers so close to pay-for-keyword-stuffed-article index-chaffing behavior my presumption starts out against it.
Compare to:
http://www.washing-machine-wizard.com/