I'm ok with the new method of measurement.

It statistically makes more sense to me. In a nuggety deposit like this one, the measurements are oftimes highly abberant. I liken it to grab samples that show 6000 oz per ton. Does that mean much of anything other than you found a cool rock? Not really.

However by going with g/m you are given a sense of the statistically normalized dispersal of the gold. The core samples could have extemely high g/t in areas and next to nothing 10 cm later, so g/m gives a better impression of the average dispersal.