10th September 2013, 05:33 PM
PhaseSI Wrote:Occasionally its down to site conditions but most of the time its bad data.
In one case it seems to be bad processing - on a large linear project most of the data is fine, but in some fields the data is clearly over-processed to the point of showing nothing...particularly galling in a field where a series of large ditches were stuffed full of tons (literally) of middle Iron Age smelting slag - but presumably additional spreads of slag in the topsoil had made the field so 'noisy' that it was processed out, losing any opportunity to determine distribution, sources (ie smelting furnaces etc) and indeed losing the ditches as well, so we've no idea what the excavated transect forms part of! [the whole field was geofizzed, over a much wider area than the excavation] Repeated requests for raw data drew no response... data's been paid for? or just the original report? Not the first time, and not from the first company