Editorial policy
Testing Methodology
How Detector Gear Guide separates hands-on testing, controlled comparisons, manufacturer specifications, research synthesis and editorial recommendations.
Bottom line
Every conclusion should identify its evidence level—hands-on use must never be implied when a page is based on documented specifications and research
A repeatable methodology is more credible than a generic “expert tested” badge. Detector performance changes with soil, targets, coil, firmware, settings, sweep technique and EMI, so test conditions and limitations must accompany any result.
Detailed framework
What the evidence supports
Evidence hierarchy and disclosure
Hands-on claims require direct use and recorded conditions. Manufacturer specifications are used for dimensions, waterproof ratings, modes and package contents. Research-based recommendations synthesize manuals and documented limitations without claiming physical possession.
Repeatable detector protocol
Record model and firmware, coil, program, sensitivity, recovery speed, discrimination, ground balance, noise cancel, soil/mineralization, target, depth, orientation and adjacent iron. Repeat sweeps from multiple directions and report ranges—not one best pass.
Scoring and commercial independence
Score use-case fit, stability, separation, target information, ergonomics, ecosystem and value. Affiliate availability may affect where a link points, never the factual rating. Material connections must be clear and no payment can purchase a favorable conclusion.
FAQ
Seven questions specific to this page
Does every reviewed detector receive hands-on testing?
No. A page must explicitly say when analysis is based on manufacturer documentation and research rather than physical testing.
What makes a depth test comparable?
The same soil, target, orientation, coil class, sweep path, settings logic and pass criteria.
Are air tests sufficient?
No. They isolate response but do not reproduce mineralization, masking, moisture or recovery conditions.
How are firmware updates handled?
Technical claims and recommended settings should be rechecked against the current manual and release notes.
Do affiliate commissions change rankings?
They must not; commercial relationships are disclosed and evidence controls the conclusion.
Why are exact depth claims treated cautiously?
Depth changes with target size, soil, coil, settings, orientation, EMI and operator technique.
How can readers challenge an error?
Use the site contact page with the page URL, disputed statement and a primary source or reproducible observation.