Comment On The New Newsletter

[nmonks]

Up to a point, I agree. But tilapia are cichlids, and carp are cyprinids, and channel catfish are catfish. So there are perfectly comparable species kept on fish farms from which aquarists can draw lessons.

Also, in some ways fish farms maintain better conditions than aquarists, in the sense that fatalities need to be much lower for the thing to be economically viable. On the other hand, they're using antibiotics, hormones, and all kind of questionable stuff like that to overcome problems aquarists deal with in the old fashioned ways -- clean water and good diet.

Cheers,

Neale

Perhaps, but that has more of an industrial perspective. Usually, large food fish like salmon are involved- not fish commonly kept stunted in the ornamental fish trade such as goldfish. And conditions used rarely resemble the home aquarium.

 

[Bignose]

Ooh, the reality of where the money is plays the biggest part in where and on what the research is done. Are you going to study carp or danios when the overwhelming majority of money in the fish economy is with the food-fish? At least that research is being done, so that at least comparisons can be made. They will always be imperfect, but it has to be better than comparing dogs to people or something like that. Every species is unique in its own way (by definition!) and even then each individual is unique as well. But, at least we can compare within the same family of fishes. It is just a reality that we have to accept that the overwhelming majority of money in fish comes from food-fish -- unless you have the money to start an aquarium fish research institute? That would be great, sign me up

 

[nmonks]

Let me share a secret with... good aquarists know a heck of a lot more about fish than the average fish scientist. I've seen stuff in research labs that would make you cry. Aquarists know a huge amount about how fish actually live and breed, while scientists tend to know more about them as "systems" for testing ideas. Sure, a scientist can tell you how many eggs are in the ovaries of Corydoras aeneus or what time of year they spawn, but it takes an aquarist to tell you how they breed, when the eggs hatch, how long they take to become free swimming. Likewise with fish behaviour. Scientists study a few "model" species like guppies and tilapia, but only aquarists collect data for hundreds, if not thousands, of species. With species that have no food value, like tetras say, its aquarists who figure out how they breed and what the behavioural interactions between individuals are.

The aquarium hobby is a VAST research institute in its own way, collecting masses of data that they freely share with others. Good aquarists have a lot to be very proud of. What we should do is encourage people to watch their fish, learn from them, and share that information.

Cheers,

Neale

It is just a reality that we have to accept that the overwhelming majority of money in fish comes from food-fish -- unless you have the money to start an aquarium fish research institute? That would be great, sign me up

 

[geo7x]

sorry i havent put my 2 cents in yet, ive been away.
I havent read all the posts because some of them are too long for me to read, but can I just say that a couple of the articles in the newsletter are controversial and people have different opinions. we have put a lot of work into this and I know it's very easy for you to come along and pick holes in each article ok, they do have things that could be considered as 'flaws', some might be genuine flaws, some might be opinion, difference in experience, whatever, at the end of the day, we're not proffesionals, the editing team are not proffesional editors, the writing team are not proffesional writers, it's there as guidance and we're bound to write things that could be taken the wrong way, or may not be entirely true. I'm sure some of you have read things in PFK that you don't entirely agree with, people are different, fish are different.

 

[andywg]

I havent read all the posts because some of them are too long for me to read,

This sentance worries me somewhat. People have generally given constructive advice on what can be done to improve the newsletter, particularly on using science and fact to prove myths wrong, but you are making it sound like wherever the post is long you have skipped it.

I have seen very little in most of the posts moaning about what has been written, but rather advice on what can be written in the future.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Indeed, I do think next time the articles coluld be more... original and in-depth. I fel that only the Brackish and myth-busting article had anything to offer, the others just felt too brief (the betta one) or just a mash of what's already pinned (pretty much everything).

 

[geo7x]

I havent read all the posts because some of them are too long for me to read,

This sentance worries me somewhat. People have generally given constructive advice on what can be done to improve the newsletter, particularly on using science and fact to prove myths wrong, but you are making it sound like wherever the post is long you have skipped it.

I have seen very little in most of the posts moaning about what has been written, but rather advice on what can be written in the future.

I have just got back from holiday so I have been trying to quickly get through everything regarding the newsletter, thats why I will read them all, and I was purely commenting on what my first impressions on the intent of the thread were, after reading the first post it was quite easy to get the jist of it, my post was just replying to the starter of the thread.
I myself am not a writer, so I trust that the writer is writing on something that they know about, so I dont mean to sound rude towards them , but it is up to them to get facts straight. I didnt choose what they wrote, they chose themselves.

 

[nmonks]

I have seen very little in most of the posts moaning about what has been written, but rather advice on what can be written in the future.

Indeed. I enjoyed the newsletter, but given the talent in this forum, there's no reason NOT to try and make each issue better, more challenging, heck, even more controversial, than the one before it. Aim high. Don't use the fact it's just "being done for fun" as an excuse to limit your ambition. Why re-hash what's in PFK or TFH? Lots of people here don't read those magazines -- and those people are your audience! Show them why they're here -- to get cutting edge aquarium science, real experiences, and information about difficult or new topics the print magazines can't be bothered to cover.

Cheers,

Neale

 

[geo7x]

well, after reading all the posts in this thread, to me it seems to have gone off topic, and has just been loads of opinions on stunting growth. Whcih just proves the point i made earlier, I dont think there's much wrong with this article, because opinion differs, there is evidence here!

there's no reason NOT to try and make each issue better

well, seeing as this is the first issue then there was nothing to compare how good it was to, but although i'll keep this in mind, i dont quite understand what youre getting at, i think the writers will agree that they did their best to make the articles as informative and interesting as they could.

off topic: about the whole baby thing in a 2 foot tank, its not quite as simple as that, a fishes attention span and intelligence differs much from that of a fish, so it would not be true to base anything on that statement, although i agree with what you say apart from the baby comparison

 

[nmonks]

What I'm getting at is that you say, well, we did a really good job with issue 1. (Which you did.) Then you say, how can we make the next issue even better. Repeat for each new issue. Raise the bar each time. Simple as that.

Looking forward to issue 2, 3, 4, and all the rest!

Neale

there's no reason NOT to try and make each issue better

well, seeing as this is the first issue then there was nothing to compare how good it was to, but although i'll keep this in mind, i dont quite understand what youre getting at, i think the writers will agree that they did their best to make the articles as informative and interesting as they could.

 

[lljdma06]

Indeed, I do think next time the articles coluld be more... original and in-depth. I fel that only the Brackish and myth-busting article had anything to offer, the others just felt too brief (the betta one) or just a mash of what's already pinned (pretty much everything).

Uh, could you clarify "a mash of what's already pinned (pretty much everything)"? I love hearing constructive criticism, but having my interview being referred to as "a mash" is a little different. I'll try to be less "mashy" next time I write an article.

If I were to voice a constructive criticism regarding the Newsletter, it would be the lack of source citation. I understand much of what we learn as aquarists is handed down by word of mouth, and that's a great thing. However, when you choose to use a written source for an article, be it from a paper source or the web, you should cite it. Whether you directly quote from a source, paraphrase it, or merely take its concepts, it is still Plagarism if the source is not cited. This is just a word of warning for future issues. The same goes for images as well. It was great seeing in AMS's article that space was taken to credit the photos of the fish. I'm not saying this happened in this particular newsletter, but we should be on guard for this, especially if more "original", "in-depth", less "mashy" articles are planned for the Newsletter's future. Sorry, OoFeeshy, you're going to get quoted a lot in this post. I will cite you, however. Not saying that we should break out our manuals in making proper footnotes and endnotes, but we should give credit where credit is due.

I agree that we should strive to make each issue better than it's predecessor. That is a give in.

llj

Quotes taken from Oohfeeshy's last post in this thread, which was posted 12:22pm, my time.

 

[Phantom Thief]

My apologies for not responding to this thread earlier, I'm smack in the middle of the exams and I can only come online intermittently.

Anyhow, I understand nitey4ever's point about there needing to be a stronger warning to make sure that any newbies reading it will understand it. I admit that I could have used analogies to put the issue into perspective for others. But I do have an excuse for my rather "watered-down" warning, if you will. It was an attempt, successful or not I do not know, to fill in a niche in between the newbie and the more advance aquarist.

This is an age old debate, one that has been going on for as long as I can remember. Besides trying to fill the niche, I was also hoping to put this matter to rest, futile as it may be.

As for sources, I believe that in the process of writing it a list of sources was sent to the editor of each article to confirm the information present in the article. Unfortunately I do not remember what my sources were but it involved Google and many hours of wading through scientific text way above my head. So I apologise for any inaccuracies in my article.

Finally, I would just like to say that I have read through every comment in this thread and I would like to invite all of you who are interested in taking a position with the newsletter to perhaps speak with the editors and join us. I'm sure you've noticed the lack of depth of some articles, so we certainly need more people with deeper knowledge of the issues to come forward and write them.

Cheerio

P.T.

 

[smurfyy_2k3]

the others just felt too brief (the betta one)

of course its brief why do you think its called betta baics everything to do with setting up the tank is in there with all of the rubbish taken out

 

[OohFeeshy]

Uh, could you clarify "a mash of what's already pinned (pretty much everything)"? I love hearing constructive criticism, but having my interview being referred to as "a mash" is a little different. I'll try to be less "mashy" next time I write an article.

Actually, I forgot about the interview That's not a 'mash' though- what I meant was, for isntance, we have a pinned Juwel filter removal topic, and the article doesn't say anything new, the betta article said nothing other than what you could find by having a flick through the pinned topics.

of course its brief why do you think its called betta baics everything to do with setting up the tank is in there with all of the rubbish taken out

That's the point though- it doesn't take half a brain cell to work out how to set up a betta tank or find information thereof. Whereas an article on, say, the origins of the 'domestic' betta is both original and interesting.

 

[smurfyy_2k3]

That's the point though- it doesn't take half a brain cell to work out how to set up a betta tank or find information thereof. Whereas an article on, say, the origins of the 'domestic' betta is both original and interesting.

its a series going through a few of the newsletter issues but you have to start at the beginning and if you havent got a tank then you cant have a betta