Remember that it's real easy to click the scroll bar rather than read my long and boring messages.
As I pointed out several times already, I can well understand where you and probably most people are coming from in the "dig it all" strategy. I've long lived by that rule in my years of detecting in many situations. However, have you ever wondered who exactly conducted the research to come to that conclusion as the one and only rule? Other than the old Fisher test in which many rings were scanned and charted (and the resolution of that meter was about as primative as it gets), I've never seen any other studies done to investigate exactly where certain percentages of *random* gold rings fall on the scale. With the advent of wider VDI scales it doesn't hurt to at least prove that that old saying still holds true. I might just as well be wrong about some if not all of my theory, but I'd rather prove that to myself than just spout off that it can't be done. Seen that attitude hold too many people back in several fields. Assuming a conclusion without going through the scientific steps to reach it isn't a conclusion at all.
If anything, there is at least one workable search strategy that I've used with a fairly good success in the past, though I hope to improve that a bit with the higher resolution on the lower part of the scale that the GT affords. Machines I've previously used it on had much less ability for me to work with, though it still proved it's worth. As simple but probably not short (nor no less boring) as I can make it, here's the whole ball of wax...
If I am hunting a large area that is simply loaded with say 5 or 6 specific trash targets, most commonly pulltabs of some sort, I simply do not wish to spend several years and countless hours digging each and every one of them. If my statistics show that there is still a large percentage of rings that fall outside of those specific numbers common to those specific tabs at that specific site, I'm willing to trade the say 27% of rings that fall into those numbers in return for the other 73% while still digging 90% less trash than I would by not avoiding them. That's a trade that's well worth it IMHO. Just as audio, vdi, and proper machine setup are powerful tools, so is that big blob of flesh called a brain that we all carry around with us. Deciding it's not possible to figure out is an easy way, and so then we can go about our mindless way digging each and every target that the coil passes over.
More specificly, what I hope to clearify for myself is exactly what percentage of test rings (*randomly selected*...not ones somebody found digging the "nickle" or perhaps "tab" zone because that's what everybody says to do) are in certain number zones. Then I'll have good idea at what that percentage is, and what percentage are still obtainable by avoiding those numbers. That's the whole point. If the tried and true slogan that "most fall into the nickle zone" holds true then that's still good because it's well below pulltabs, but if I find that another large percentage range from 95 to 135, or say 165 to 173, then that's something to work with as well. Further still, depending on the area it might be worth digging certain numbers within the full span of tabs, ones that aren't commonly coming up in my air tests. I've already noted no less than 3 or 4 numbers within that span of 153 to 165 that are a total blank in my very random sample base. These tabs weren't cherry picked, but rather were the results of digging "anything above iron" at numerous sites. Again, I'm willing to follow through and accept the final conclusion, not prejudge what it's going to be.
As far as getting out there and hunting goes, I live in the Northeast and it's that time of year when the weather tells me when I can hunt. I enjoy researching new sites and conducting these kinds of tests almost as much as I do detecting. It's all part of the hobby.
uke: