Controls Are Dangerous, Keep Them Off Detectors

[mh9162013]

17 minutes ago, phrunt said:

This was a prime example of why a fixed setting isn't always the best, where having some manual control may in fact improve performance. 

But I don't think iron bias for SMF tech like the MIQ (and presumably the Legend) is something that's always best for being adjustable. Honestly, for every 100 people who use the Equinox, I'd estimate that at least 50 never touch the iron bias setting consistently. And of those that do, 25 aren't actually improving performance. If my numbers are correct, we're looking at 25% of Equinox users using iron bias adjustability to their benefit.

I say all of this b/c it's almost impossible to confirm that adjusting the iron bias up or down is producing less undesirable targets and more desirable targets. That's b/c you don't know what you don't know. So people will make a change, see an extra desirable target and assume their adjustment made a positive difference. However, had they not made the adjustment, they might have found 2 extra desirable targets.

I think of adjustable iron bias as manual transmission in a car. Yes, it's nice to have more control. But the majority of drivers either can't take advantage of this greater control (either b/c they don't want to or don't know how to).

TL;DR: N/M's decision to not initially allow iron bias to be adjustable is 100% understandable. Heck, even Minelab's original iron bias adjustment had to be modified to allow for MORE iron bias adjustability with a later update.

 

[phrunt]

I think this is a good read

I'm confident adjusting my iron bias to F2-0 over the default FE setting is giving me my desired result when gold prospecting, I would not like to be stuck in the Legends default setting when looking for small nuggets.

[Steve Herschbach]

18 minutes ago, mh9162013 said:

Honestly, for every 100 people who use the Equinox, I'd estimate that at least 50 never touch the iron bias setting consistently. And of those that do, 25 aren't actually improving performance.

Repetition of the “people don’t use it, or don’t know how to use it” commentary, that prompted my post.

The argument over whether NM made the “correct” decision in initially leaving the IB control off the Legend is purely subjective. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer. It’s merely a design and marketing question that can go either way. I would submit, as a marketing whiz, that saying you are basically duplicating another detector, but for less money, and with possibly better performance…. that argument is undercut by leaving off a control many top end users desire.

I totally agree most people don’t use the iron bias, in fact, most Equinox users probably can’t find the control. So what? I know where it is, what it does, and find it critical at times to have that control available. If NM wants my attention selling a so-called high end machine, they won’t get it denying me controls I find useful. But that’s just me, and I’m admittedly not the normal detector consumer.

[mh9162013]

7 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Repetition of the “people don’t use it, or don’t know how to use it” commentary, that prompted my post.

I'm just saying that when it comes to adjustability, a company is in a possibly no-win situation. Increase adjustability and many people will complain about increased complexity of their device or how the adjustability makes their device work not as well. Reduce adjustabiltiy and you get people complaining about the company taking a patronizing approach to their customers treating them like idiots or having some other nefarious goal. 

So what's a company to do? Crunch numbers and go with the lesser of two evils (at least that's my assumption).

[Steve Herschbach]

9 minutes ago, mh9162013 said:

I'm just saying that when it comes to adjustability, a company is in a possibly no-win situation. Increase adjustability and many people will complain about increased complexity of their device or how the adjustability makes their device work not as well. Reduce adjustabiltiy and you get people complaining about the company taking a patronizing approach to their customers treating them like idiots or having some other nefarious goal. 

So what's a company to do? Crunch numbers and go with the lesser of two evils.

I amended my post above with more detail just as you posted. It kind of mirrors what you just said. The bottom line this is my thread expressing my opinion, and the problems manufactures face really don’t concern me. If they can’t take the heat, find another business.

[mh9162013]

14 minutes ago, phrunt said:

...

I'm confident adjusting my iron bias to F2-0 over the default FE setting is giving me my desired result when gold prospecting, I would not like to be stuck in the Legends default setting when looking for small nuggets.

I believe you're making the right decision. You're a well-experienced and educated metal detectorist who's got access to other knowledgeable detectorists and isn't afraid to tinker. You are not the typical metal detectorist because of these traits, though.

[Geotech]

20 hours ago, schoolofhardNox said:

Put as many controls on the unit as possible.

The V3 is a counter-argument to this. It had (almost) as many controls as possible but people complained bitterly that it was too complicated to use. Even though there was a simplified interface mode (the "6-block" menu screen) for newbies and the placement of advanced features in the aptly-named Expert menus. Even adding a full interactive help system in the V3i didn't do much to curb the complaints. And many of those complaints came from dealers who were so uncomfortable with the detector they often wouldn't try to sell it*.

The issue is that the user always feels he is not getting peak performance unless all controls are optimized. So they feel the need to try to adjust everything, often for the worse. With 5 controls you couldn't get in too much trouble... with 50 controls trouble comes easy. Add to this that buyers of the V3 were often newbies who felt that if they are going to buy a metal detector then they should just go ahead and buy a top-of-the-line model and skip the learning stage.

The VX3 had a good solution that was never carried through. It is hardware-identical to a V3i but features were pared way back. But it actually has 3 more skill "levels" that can be activated with passwords, which incrementally add more features until it becomes a full-blown V3i. The idea was to sell these as e.g. $99 upgrades people would buy when they were ready. It was never offered.

But it does beg the question: If you could buy, say, an Equinox 600 today for $700 and later upgrade it to an 800 for an add'l $300 would you find that to be a distasteful business practice? I recently read that auto manufacturers are considering this, where you pay a la carte for options that are software-disabled even when the hardware is designed into the car. Surveys indicate that this would greatly annoy new car buyers. However, oscilloscopes are being sold this way now... you can buy a basic model and then upgrade the bandwidth or enable the signal generator or logic analyzer features later.

For a detector I'm thinking more like the VX3, where there are 4 levels, each of which offer a several new features that are progressively more advanced. The incremental upgrade price would depend on the price of the base model and the corresponding advanced model but, for argument, let's say $99 each and also say that a fully upgraded base model is just slightly more expensive than buying the top model from the start.

And, no, this is not a hint of anything FTP is considering. In fact, I'm certain they would not.

*At White's we were told, "If the dealer can't explain the feature, then we don't include it." I heard over & over "keep it dumb-dirt-simple." I still don't know how the V3 ever made it out the door.

[phrunt]

The iron bias setting on the Nox is well hidden, it's actually easier to find on the Vanquish, their beginners detector where you can have it on low/high.  Minelab thought it was not such an advanced feature when they applied it to the Vanquish.

So as users scroll around in the settings on the Nox they will never even see it, they're not going to be confused by settings they can't see.  If they learn their detector and read the manual again once they have more of an understanding of their detector they may want to experiment with the setting if they think it'd benefit them. 

The real question is, was Nokta making a beginners detector or one that appeals to more demanding users as well?  They sure marketed it as being one that suits the more demanding users.

By having "advanced" controls available and in sub menu's hidden away by timed button presses greatly benefits what I guess you're describing as power users, and to the normal everyday user they don't even need to know they're there, their life doesn't change at all and perhaps one day they'll want to use them too, at least they have them available if they do.

[Steve Herschbach]

Great post Carl, and certainly there is such a thing as too much. I’ve made the argument myself, or at least recognized it as real as an issue. I clearly remember telling you at one point that what the world wanted was a simplified V3i stripped down to fit in a lightweight, waterproof package. 

I made a huge case for Equinox 600 being as good as the Equinox 800 for nearly all users. The reality is the 800 still outsells the 600 by huge margins, even though most of the users don’t employ the extra features they paid for. I think some of it just boils down to the price difference not being that great, and the fear of missing out somehow by not getting the higher price machine.

Is not reality simply different strokes for different folks? And that we need choices in the marketplace, so each can have their own?

[mh9162013]

3 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

fear of missing out

I can see that being a major factor, especially given how the average human mind (and social media) works.