I was thinking...

[portraitartist]

Then I had to go take some aspirin...

But seriously... No, I was thinking about detectors on my way to work this morning (I have an hour drive, so I think about a lot of stuff), and how we seem to classify some detectors as good and others as better; and how the only real way to find anything is to dig it, etc., etc., and I had an idea...

To me, it would seem like the only real way to define which machines are better that others would be to catalog everything found on a series of hunts, in different categories, and keep a running number of "good" finds vs. "junk" (or non-keepers, basically what would be thrown away)...

But...

The hunter would have to make the decision before digging each target of whether it's "good" or "bad" and keep a record of how many they got correct/incorrect... this would develop a percentage in each category for total number of items found... obviously a higher "good" number would be ultimately desirable...

However, upon typing that thought, it just occurred to me - does that reflect more on the hunter, or the machine...?

Anyway, please offer your thoughts on this... I might even do it myself as a way of re-training myself on my Fisher...

[journeyoftheanimals]

I would think it would reflect more on the hunter then the machine. I have about 15 hours of MDing in and I am sure your thought on what something is would be greatly different from what I would think it is going to be.

So like I said, I think it would be more of a reflection on the hunter then the MD.

[portraitartist]

I agree... but I also just realized that the other factor is depth, so I guess one would have to keep track of the depth of each target retrieved in order to get a threshold for each diff machine...

(man my left brain is on fire today - somebody get a hose!)

[SandSkimmer]

whew... I think I need some asprin That would take someone willing to make a 1 hour hunt into a 3+ hour hunt...

jT

[JCWhite]

In my short time doing this hobby I have learned that the experience of the MD'er with a machine overshadows the performance issue so much that it makes it hard to do studies like this. Which tells me that practice is more valuable than technology which for the most part is on a fairly level playing field. JC

[KellycoChick]

Any machine that aids a metal detectorist with findin' valuable stuff is worth being called "good" to me. Research, dedication and patience all pay off and are all much more valuable then the price of many machines. I don't discriminate, and I will CERTAINLY never knock anyone for a machine that they have.

[jimmyjiver]

Hi, I Really Think It's Mainly The Operator That Controls The Final Outcome Of Your Finds. The User Or The Detector Can Not Control The Conductivity Of Targets. In A Nutshell If The Machine Says It's A Good Target Were Inclined To Dig It. I Kinda Touched On This Subject Here.Is Cheaper Better???? You Be The Judge Thanks JJ

[Joker]

Great idea but i think your factors list will grow and grow, when we should be all popping a few aspirin and diggin dirt

[portraitartist]

Yes, you're right... and ironically enough, last night I was reading the I Ching, and came across a passage that basically states that specifically looking for something will for all intents and purposes make finding that thing less desirable...

but... my whole point in this post was to question what criteria we should use to determine what makes up the "best" detector, and that logging each find with specifics and a guess as to the object before digging seems to be a good solution...

and yeah, sometimes I think too much.

[Joker]

I agree wholeheartedly. I think your on the right track and thinking is a big headstart man..

and BTW your artwork is awesome..

Joker