This paper examines literature that claims, suggests, or implies that floods with “colloidal dispersion gels” (CDGs) are superior to polymer floods for oil recovery. The motivation for this report is simple. If CDGs can propagate deep into the porous rock of a reservoir, and at the same time, provide resistance factors or residual resistance factors that are greater than those for the same polymer formulation without the crosslinker, then CDGs should be used in place of polymer solutions for most/all polymer, surfactant, and ASP floods. In contrast, if the claims are not valid, (1) money spent on crosslinker in the CDG formulations was wasted, (2) the mobility reduction/mobility control for CDG field projects was under-designed, and (3) reservoir performance could have been damaged by excessive loss of polymer, face-plugging by gels, and/or excessive fracture extension.