We need a detector rating system

We have lots of different folks here running a lot of different detectors
A lot is discussed about them,,but the terms could be viewed as in general terms.

What about using some symbols to better indicate a detector's performance.

For example,,,imagine if we used a symbol like an hour glass.
One end of glass represents shading in respect to a detectors ability to separate,,,the other end of the glass depth.
Could have one glass for lower mineral soil,,and one for more harsh soil.

Other attributes of detectors that are interrelated could be done the same way.

Even have a hour glass for different sized coils like 5" coil, 6" coil, ect.

Something better for folks who can at a glance get a quicker idea of a detectors performance.

And this symbols be used when a specific detector is being talked about,,,,like in initial post.

Just an idea,,,but with all these detectors cropping up from across the pond,,,,,it could get very confusing for some.

And new releases here in the USA..

I'll bet Johnny Anglo could devise such a thing,,,,and with some input from experienced folks of certain models,,,,could establish a good data base.
Big thing is ,,,don't let it get too busy info wise.

Good Lord no!---Most of us don't understand his charts now!-----You must stay awake at night thinking all this stuff up David.----I'm kiddin ya, (kinda).

YOUR in charge of that TNSS

Keith

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla

Well,
I don't think ot would be very complicated,,,especially if most of the older units were already rated.
The bows and arrows industry did some thing similar some years ago,,to help guide folks along as far as differentiating potential speed.

May I will talk to Johnny Anglo about this.

At least do it for a few of the more popular detectors to see how it works/looks.

This could also aid,,,,in having to redo answering some questions that get brought up here.

I would rather just go detecting and take what I read with a grain of salt unless it pertains to my machine or one I want to buy

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

Lawrenzo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would rather just go detecting and take what I r
> ead with a grain of salt unless it pertains to my
> machine or one I want to buy


So tell me Lawrenzo,,,,which grain of salt did you read,,,,to get Deus and Racer units???

What compelled you to buy,,,,or was a rabbit pulled out of the hat,,,and the rabbit's name was Deus with a Racing stripe down its side.lol

What are you trying to do? Break the Internet?
I shudder at the arguments that would cause.

Champ Ferguson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are you trying to do? Break the Internet?
> I shudder at the arguments that would cause.


Break the internet???

Actually having such a system using symbols,,,,would decrease overall questions asked,,I think.

Maybe this process should start with units released since 2008-2009,,,, and once up and running,,,new releases can be added through time.
The detectors will be rated using more or less a " consensus " of opinion from trusted and respected sources,,,no BS.

A guide not etched in pure concrete.

I'm always ready for a new unit as long as it is a unit that is a step above what I own..and owning and understanding a detector is sometimes the best combo. So I like what I'm using and my finds have gone up.

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

By creating a standardized rating system detectors it is likely that producers will start their new models optimized only for this test and ignoring the actual search terms ...
ps: a good idea but it is important not to make a mistake by creating such a system.
For example there are detectors that pass Nail Board Test but rather a coin drop below the level of nails, the detector will no longer see a coin ...
(Cited as a real example of the contradiction)

LOCATION makes or brakes this hobby, coils can go so deep...hh

I have been looking into adding a detector rating section to this site. If there is an interest, I will further pursue it.

Wally

wildwally1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been looking into adding a detector rating
> section to this site. If there is an interest, I
> will further pursue it.
>
> Wally


Yes Wally,,,very interested.

wildwally1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been looking into adding a detector rating
> section to this site. If there is an interest, I
> will further pursue it.
>
> Wally


By all means, please do Wally.

It would be nice to have a chart comparing detectors and coils. Although it would be hard to do with all the detectors and coils out there. Ground conditions would make the deciding factor on how they operate.

In theory its a wonderful idea but in reality in would be very hard,not only the large amount of different detectors that are on the market either established one or brand new ones,but also so many variables like coils sizes,various detecting locations,basically the list could go on and on with the amount of variables.

Some metal detecting review sites all ready exist like Metal detector reviews and these are mainly reviewed by folks who have actually used them,leave comment/s either good and bad on what they like or dislike.So nothing is new as such,but i have always said that you wont get a bad review from either well established video online or magazine folks it just does not happen,they may send the machines back without post a review but they certainly would not d a bad video or text review.

A rating system might be interesting so I say go for it. I also know it'll provide more discussion as to all who disagree with the rating system. i.e. college football rankings, best state to live in, best car to own, etc. etc. so who knows, it' might just keep those who are threatening to leave the forum a reason to stick around

Rating system,,,shouldn't go down in the weeds too much,,,but should reflect some characterization for comparison sake.

Methods used to rate like symbols could be useful,,,I talked about above.

I like the hour glass (closed) idea,,,,,with shading with a scale to depict performance.

Maybe even differentiate by having symbols show low, medium, and high mineralization.

Some things to maybe rate on,,,,depth,,separation, emi subceptibilty,,ease of use, ground balance system, audio, warranty, weight, etc.

tnsharpshooter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Champ Ferguson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What are you trying to do? Break the Internet?
> > I shudder at the arguments that would cause.
>
>
> Break the internet???
>
> Actually having such a system using symbols,,,,wou
> ld decrease overall questions asked,,I think.
>
> Maybe this process should start with units release
> d since 2008-2009,,,, and once up and running,,,ne
> w releases can be added through time.
> The detectors will be rated using more or less a "
> consensus " of opinion from trusted and respected
> sources,,,no BS.
>
> A guide not etched in pure concrete.


You do know I am just kidding around. But in all seriousness, I think the bitching and arguing about the rating of someone's pet machine would be monumental.

I have a rating system....

I used it and I liked it.
I used it and I didn't like it.
It doesn't interest me enough to try it.

There are very few real dogs out there. After a while its all about personal preference and hair splitting.

HH

Mike

On second thought. I would like a feature comparion, though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2017 07:01PM by Mike Hillis.

How bout a poll for registered users, rating the detector on several performance parameters (stock coil only).

one to 5 stars for the basics, ergnomics, ease of use, build quality ect.

one to 10 stars for performance by category of main intended use, relic hunting..iron handling, coin shooting..parks ect

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.

One person's favorite might be someone else's least favorite. We all hunt for different things in different places so it would be hard to have a rating system.

Too many 'variables' ................. coupled with (involuntary) human-bias & methodology-of-standardization testing. This is why field tests are critical; yet, geographically restricted/biased ......and can also suffer from (involuntary) human-bias. But...... with a field test,,,,,, there lies a 'basis' to launch from........ for your personal (and different variables) application.

The die-hards on this forum genuinely do their best to report....... and with the best of their human (fallible) accuracy.

My thoughts too Tom..

Too many variables..

there used to be a website in the U.K. that compiled tons of data for every unit..

Only problem was no one was ever happy with the charts..LOL

Keith

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla

there is only one variable, operation error

Personally, what I describe below would be the best way to design a rating system. I'd ask users to measure their detector(s) in the twelve areas below and give an overall recommendation.

I'd use a scale of 1-5, with action words attached to describe/relate their subjective feelings more accurately. Since the results are based on impressions the rating system shouldn't be any more detailed than that (rather than objectively determining depth or target separation in inches - which no one really knows with any accuracy, and is too difficult to measure. Each rating value is assigned to each of the twelve categories (it would be via HTML menu selection on this site - one would hope).

Rating 1 = Lowest: Failure, worst, difficult, ineffective, worthless, inept, shoddy
Rating 2 = Substandard: Unexceptional, substandard, poor, inferior, low-grade, shoddy
Rating 3 = Ordinary: Middling, common, sufficient, reasonably effective, straightforward
Rating 4 = Advanced: Exceptional, impressive, notable, solid, substantial, significant
Rating 5 = Highest: Phenomenal, unheard-of, special, fantastic, unparalleled, unequaled

Rating Categories
1. EMI susceptibility
2 Target separation/unmasking
3. Recovery depth/sensitivity
4. Detector ergonomics
5. Ease of use
6. Software navigation ease
7. Build quality
8. Soil handling ability/GB range
9. Audio discrimination ability
10. TID discrimination ability
11. Warranty & Repair happiness
12. Overall satisfaction

After the detector is rated in each category, the user would then select the environment it would work best in. Where would the detector excel? Under what conditions? Again, rather than listing every conceivable situation a detector could be used (parks, relics, ballparks, tot lots, dry sand, etc) which are numberless, the user is restricted to four responses to complete the provided sentence. By completing categories A-D a picture takes shape of where the user thinks the detector excels. The goals is to have challenging discriminators. Any detector can do well in good soil in shallow depths with no masking problems. The categories A-D below are sufficiently unfriendly to detectors to differentiate the mundane detector from the more robust performers. To avoid maligning other people's favorite detector - the user would not provide negative recommendations, meaning they don't rate where the detector would be ineffective or least suited.

General Use Recommendation
Complete the sentence using selection A-D below.
It is assumed the detector is suitable for clean, neutral soils where targets are shallow (baseline)

This detector would be best used for __A__ producing targets in __B__ soils/water where target depth is __C__ and in soil that contains __D__ unwanted items

"A" choices: weak signal, low-mod signal, strong signal
"B" choices: low mineral, low salt, high minerals, high salt, combined low minerals/salt, combined high minerals/salt
"C" choices: very shallow (<2"), shallow (2-3"), medium (3-6"), deep (6-10"), very deep (10-13"), extremely deep (>13"+)
"D" choices: minimal, some ferrous, some non-ferrous, some mixed, much ferrous, much non-ferrous, much mixed

where,
Weak signal = shallow low conductors (e.g., thin chain) or deeper high conductor (silver quarter); harder to detect
Strong signal = shallow high conductor (silver quarter) or very shallow low conductor (thin chain); easier to detect
Mineralized = soil containing iron oxides (magnetite, lodestone, hematite, decomposed iron); fewer oxides are easier to detect
Low conductors = Metals such as: zinc, brass, nickel, platinum, tin, and thin alloyed metals (thin rings, irregular shaped or small jewelry);hard to detect
High conductors = Metals such as: silver, copper, pure gold, or aluminum (thicker jewelry like rings, pendants, or round/flat targets); easier to detect
Unwanted ferrous = ferro-/ferri-magnetic items (iron/steel, and nickel/cobalt alloyed targets: nails, iron flakes, rusted junk: hairpins, wire, bottle-tops)
Unwanted non-ferrous = non-iron items (copper, aluminum, brass/bronze, lead, pewter, titanium, tin, stainless steel, junk: pull-tabs, lead sinkers, foil)
Mixed = soil containing a mixture of both non-ferrous and ferrous unwanted items (e.g., ghost town with iron nails, rusting metal and aluminum can-slaw)

May seem somewhat overwhelming ... but put in an HTML format with pull-down menu selections it would be a quick and easy survey (even fun) hosted on this website. Wouldn't need detector settings used or particulars beyond Make, Model, and perhaps coil size/type (11" DD, 6" concentric). Again, this is a subjective rating - only the crude details are required.

The ratings and recommendation would be best displayed graphically (pie chart, bar chart, etc.) so users can easily see where each rated detector falls.

Would be one heck of an experiment (if it could actually be done - it certainly appears feasible to me). Would also bring new visitors to this site, if only at first to take the survey (then hopefully they stay and expand the forum's knowledge base).

-Johnnyanglo

Casey neistat Rating system works wonders. Just use Crayola

Simple:
George Liked it
George didn't

Johnnyangle,
I like where you are going but how would my little buddy, the Bounty Hunter Tracker IV fair in your rateing system? Its a fun detector, I like using it, and I found my last gold ring of 2016 with it. It has a place in my detector line up.

I would ask that detectors under review also be divided into categories that reflect the mfg's targeted user. Beginner, casual intermediate, intermediate, advanced, etc.... That would give a better picture than trying to rate a Bounty Hunter Tracker IV against a F75LTD.

Value for dollar spent.

Fun factor.

Thanks
Mike

There is also a treasure hunting aspect to a detector that I hesitate to discuss but few units would measure very highly Exanimo style.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2017 02:20PM by Mike Hillis.

Also, besides just basic performance there is also the feature set that has to be considered. Feature sets are what give a metal detector versatility, allowing them to be used in more than one environment and to overcome various detecting obstacles.

I'd also want to see if the detector met the design intent.

I was looking at Etrac reviews, and on this site they offered the reviewer the ability to give a max depth number which was then averaged and applied the to the detector's basic rating. It was easy to tell that the last few reviewers were posting to 'up' that rating due to displeasure over the previous result.

HH
Mike