aarthrj3811 said:
Test
With the dowser, the dowser-observer, and the concealer-observer behind their respective screens, the concealer should hide the target at a selected location. The concealer should not proceed directly to the selected location, but should start at one end of the target line and stop at every location. If the target is to be hidden under an object such as a brick, then each brick should be picked up and replaced. If the target is to be buried, each location should have it's dirt disturbed in a like manner. The reason for this is to provide complete consistency for each "hide", and to ensure that each location has been equally disturbed and not just the one containing the target. The concealer-observer does not need to observe this part of the test.
The concealer now proceeds to his screen and signals the dowser. With the dowser-observer watching and the concealer and concealer-observer behind their screen, the dowser determines where the target is located. The dowser-observer records the result and the dowser verifies the recorded result, both in permanent ink. Verbal silence should be maintained. They both return to their screen area.
Now the concealer-observer emerges and determines the target location. Like the procedure to hide the target, the concealer-observer should start at one end and check each location. When the target is found the concealer-observer should note the location. The remaining locations should still be checked even after the target is recovered to (1) maintain consistency and (2) ensure that the concealer did not hide more than one target. The concealer-observer records the location in permanent ink and the concealer verifies the recorded result. The concealer-observer returns to the screen area and the process is repeated until all 10 runs are complete.
Is this what you would call an Information Leak...Someone knows where the target is hidden...Art
Whne you're speaking of a test target, someone will always know where the target is hidden, Art. The difference between this example and the ones prior is that there was commuinication and actual directions given to the dowser.
The example given above is a fairly well-written description of a double-blind study. In this case, the observer and the dowser were on the scene at the same time, separate from the one doing the hiding.
Care was taken to make sure that each possible location was disturbed in the same manner to insure that there would be no tell-tale clues left to this effect, and the results were not disclosed until all 10 trials were complete.
There are only a couple of changes that I can see.
First, reduce the number of people participating. Remember, too many cooks.....
Just a hider, a dowser, an observer and a silent watchman.
First, have all three survey the test area and obtain agreement that the set-up is agreeable to all.
The observer and dowser leave the area entirely, leaving the hider. The hider will then hide the target, making sure to leave no visible clues. He will keep a record of the location he hid the target for each run and keep this record with him. The hider will then leave the area.
The dowser will then come out, check each location and record where he thinks the target is, keeping this record with him. The dowser will then leave the area
without turning any stones to check his guesses.
The observer will then come out, turn each stone, locate the target and record this. He will take his record with him and leave the area.
The hider will then come out, and the whole thing will start again.
During all of this, the silent watchman will be on scene, preferably behind a two-way mirror, to record any questionable behavior.
This routine will prevent any party from trying to manipulate the results and give an accurate record without worry that any information was passed from one party to the next.
Yikes!! WTF 
