@Bob13 Thats are very mature and intelligent suggestion! 
Seriously, thats been were I have wanted to go from the beginning - but obviously I have not been successful!
There have been a couple of threads on this subject, but its been a while.
As I recall, pretty much everyone eventually agreed gm/watt was lacking to at least some degree, but there was no real consensus on what metric to use. The problem being that there is such a huge variation in growing conditions and sizes or rooms and number of plants, that no single metric really covered all conditions fairly or equally.
One thing we did agree on was that time needed to be included, but thats not enough by itself.
Take two people who both harvest a net 1000 grams, you could say they both did equally well.
But what if one took 6 months to get to harvest and the other took 3 months?
What if one guy harvest from a single plant but the other guy had 10 plants?
What if one was growing in an small closet and the other guy was in a big room?
And most irrelevant of all - what if one guy had 1000 watts and the other guy had 500 watts?
Its like @nitro’s grow and mine. They were radically different grows in almost all respects. No single metric can cover all those bases equally well or equally fairly.
For my personal tracking, grams/day is the only thing that matters to me. Everything else in my grows is always the same - sq ft, height, tent, nutes (more or less) lights, temps, etc etc etc.
But - no one else can compare their gm/day to my gm/day because it leaves out time and space.
If someone else had 10 times the space to grow in, you would expect them to have a much larger gm/day number - on the order of 10 times as high. If they took 2 times as long to harvest, you would also expect at least some increase in yield. Or if they had 10 times the number of plants you would expect them to have a higher yield.
So to really compare, you would need to do something like gm/day/plant/sq ft - but OMG thats way to much division and the numbers would look very very small.
In my case, my better grows are coming in at just under 8 gm/day. Call it 7.5 gm/day. That doesnt sound too bad. But add in plants and sq ft and it gets small.
763/96/3/7.33 = .36
But then - how do you figure the sq ft on a large grow where the grower needs walking room? and space between large plants to work on them? In that case, they start to look really bad compared to my grow in a small tent where I have zero wasted space. We saw that in one set of numbers comparing my grow to @nitro’s. His sq ft number includes all those things my tent doesnt have, so it made his grow look much worse than it could have.
If he had taken my tent and just put several of them side by side, our numbers would have been much closer.
I have a bad habit of doing long posts, so I’ll cut it short.
I think the best compromise for a general purpose dick measuring, excuse me, I meant to say “grow” measuring tool is gm/day/plant.
Its still not perfect by a long shot. Guys who do sea of green with single colas, and guys who veg for a long time will both look worse than guys who do short veg cycles and/or train the heck out of their plants.
I still think its the best compromise, but Im all for coming up with a better one. Anything is better than gm/watt.
Anyone have anything they think is better than gm/day/plant?
