If I understand the article that you posted correctly, then...

If I understand the article that you posted correctly, then smearing involves presenting a small portion of a drill result without declaring the full length of the assayed portion. Provided the extent of the high grade portion is declared then I do not have a problem with that. It is gram-metres that is the more significant measure of a result and so the length is just as important as the grade.

With regard to the SMI drill result, they declare two sections at 5.7m for 11.97 g/t and 4.0m for 12.6 g/t. These are certainly high grades and one assumes that the rest of the drill gave insignificant results, although they do give the average across 21.7m at 5.7 g/t, which is still a high grade in today's environment. Everything seems transparent to me because they have revealed both the extent of the high grade intercepts and the depth at which they occurred.

If it is the headline of the announcement that concerns you, then I have learned that it is wise to read the content of any announcement before drawing any conclusions. Bit like newspaper headlines really. High grade results is one of the most nebulous and abused terms in the world of gold explorers.
In this case, however, I think SMI is justified in using the term High Grade.

In fact, I have been encouraged to place a buy order, even if at a price under the market at present.