Fish Species Index

[Back in the fold]

I was wondering to myself why The Great TFF Forum doesn’t have something like the Seriously Fish website that would give all the skinny on any particular aquarium fish . Well , turns out it does and I am now wondering why I never noticed it before . It’s the Fish Species Index which anybody can find easily enough . I think we should all do our part in updating and adding photos and information to the Fish Species Index as it appears to be underutilized .

 

[Essjay]

You should have seen the state the Index was in when I first became a mod. I was given the task of moving much of the content out of there as so many posts were asking questions rather than fish profiles. It was clear once I'd finished that most of the profiles were written early in TFF's life; few profiles have been written in recent years. I wonder if that's a reflection of the amount of information on-line over time? Not much when TFF started, but a glut of info nowadays?

 

[GaryE]

I think a project like that would need an editor, or editors. There are so many fish profiles online that are simply wrong. Seriously Fish clearly has some sort of editorial board reviewing things, and that's why we can disagree on points, but they are always grounded in fact.

From having worked as an editor for fish books, it's a lot of work. Plus if you tell someone who's being paid they need to make changes, or someone who's publishing under their own name and reputation they've written something questionable, they tend to accept it. You have a good conversation and lay out the ideas. There's a scientific approach.

People writing for free get really defensive and often nasty.

We've had articles written here that were total misinformation, by confident members who had been keeping fish for... weeks. Thankfully, they were only posted in threads. I tried to discuss with one of them. It didn't go well.

People volunteer less now. They don't join clubs and work together. I see no glut of info - rather the opposite.

 

[Essjay]

It's the amount of info - or so-called info - available on line. Just enter a species in a search engine and there are pages and pages of hits. Or ask your AI to tell you about a species, that'll trawl on-line sites for you.
The problem nowadays isn't finding info, it's sorting the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Back in the fold]

The problem nowadays isn't finding info, it's sorting the wheat from the chaff.

That is exactly right . Everyone today thinks they’re an authority on whatever subject but very few are . We also have the gullible and naive among us who don’t have sufficient experience to sort the wheat from the chaff themselves . I think the moderators we have here could do a good job and I also think that the forum members we have can , for the most part , keep the volunteered information factual . This could be a very good quick resource for everyone here .

 

[GaryE]

I'm very skeptical. Every forum I've ever been on has wanted to have an attached fish book. Not one has ever succeeded.

I'd rather throw my support behind something like Seriously Fish.

When the internet was new, I thought we'd have naturally forming groups of people whose time and effort had made them experts on certain fish groups banding together to create specialized forums and information bases. The rise of troll culture killed that dead. Instead of supporting such ideas, the internet attacked anything that reeked of expertise. If you look at some of the attacks on a member like Byron here, it was disgraceful. You don't have to agree with an expert, but you do need to present credible, thought out and backed up arguments when you disagree.

We've lost the ability to discuss, and are often prone to announcing. We always were, but now it's so easy. It's not new, but it's louder.

@Back in the fold - if you want to start a working group on fish profiles, I'll help out. I'd want to see 6 to 8 people in it, and all open to submitting their monthly contributions to the group for discussion and peer editing. Each article would need a few reference sources so casual readers who want to dig deeper could do so.

On a now defunct forum, I got roped into a deal like this with 2 other people. One became pregnant and had health issues, so she dropped out. One never really dropped in - he volunteered and ghosted. That didn't work. And as a privately owned forum, when the owner lost interest and stopped paying for the site, everything was gone.

To me, we have to treat these things like old time publishing did. I had a series editor, a copy editor and a peer editor, and everything I wrote was critiqued. The peer editor was a real expert, an Ichthyologist with one of my favourite fish named after him. He's a nice guy, but he scared me.

 

[Coryking]

if you want to start a working group on fish profiles, I'll help out. I'd want to see 6 to 8 people in it, and all open to submitting their monthly contributions to the group for discussion and peer editing. Each article would need a few reference sources so casual readers who want to dig deeper could do so.

I personally think that this is a great idea thus I will happily volunteer. I do have an idea to help stop trolls. Limit the people who can post and reply to species index's to only forum members of a certain rank for example fish crazy.

 

[Back in the fold]

I like the ideas that @Coryking proposed . My thought was that members would post about fish that they currently have and have been successful with . They would post their experiences and what aquarium and conditions that fish was kept in and maybe something from a credible source that can be checked like @GaryE said . Right now I would feel comfortable posting about my Aplocheilus lineatus Golden Wonder Killifish only because I have kept them for several years and have successfully raised a good number of fry . I have had lots of different fish over the years but I am by no means any kind of expert on any of them . I’ve had and raised Angelfish and Rams in the past but I think there are other hobbyists who have more detailed knowledge on those fish and I would like to know their experiences . One current thread here asked about Glass Catfish and the member could first check our Fish Species Index and if he didn’t find his answer then he could ask specific questions .
Moderators have a job here to keep the rude and obnoxious posts weeded out and to , perhaps , add clarification but this could work . I think we should give it a shot . @emeraldking , @fish48 and @TwoTankAmin , @Uberhoust and , of course , @Colin_T are very knowledgeable about their fish and I think we have the makings of something useful here .

 

[Ceez]

We've had articles written here that were total misinformation, by confident members who had been keeping fish for... weeks.

Anything that helps promote a solid foundation of usable information to help educate us with facts is always welcomed. It's a great idea, having essentially a panel of folks to dissect and confirm that what is written in fish profiles is in fact, facts.

When I have researched "google scholar", as twotankamin likes to call it, information is parceled and wide spread when it comes to individual fish with hardly anything being even 80% comprehensive. You get this little bit of info from here, that from there..would be nice to see more in depth complete profiles in one space. That being said it's a daunting task and very much an experience related resource of facts vs scientifically studied facts. The scientific evidence that's available for each individual species is light in the pants imo. Also, I have seen what was thought to be gospel on certain fish in the 80s change over the years to be somewhat contradictory now. Obviously with more experience (time spent with the actual species) our information and experience evolves.

Even here over the short time I've been a member I have had experiences that have contradicted what was thought to be gospel and proven that these fish are even more versatile than we all thought in a variety of different conditions. So maybe with that in mind the resource that yall are talking about creating could be more in line with the "Wikipedia" universe based off of and encompassing everyone's overall experience to show just how versatile certain fish can be.

Anywhoo, I love the idea and good luck!

 

[emeraldking]

We've had articles written here that were total misinformation, by confident members who had been keeping fish for... weeks.

Most of them are youngsters who are too confident about themselves but lacking experience. Or they're young people who think they know it all because they've been surfing the internet too much.

It's the amount of info - or so-called info - available on line.

There are a lot of wannabee experts who use info on their own homepage or site which they've found elsewhere on the internet. And don't realize that much of that info are exact copies of texts from commercial aquarium books that don't tell the correct stories anyways.

the internet attacked anything that reeked of expertise

Oh yes, definitely...! A lot of wannabee experts hate the real experts...

We've lost the ability to discuss, and are often prone to announcing.

Completely true...! And often it's not about the subject itself but the persons themselves who don't realize that they are basically talking about themselves instead of the subject itself.
And people should be open to other's experiences. There are too many people who only see their own vision on things as the only correct way. Personal experiences "can" differ... which makes a discussion more interesting. And ask why a person sees it that way instead of arguing. Own experiences do matter as well... If one experiences something differently than the books says, it's worth to mention it and work on that.

 

[GaryE]

I guess what worries me is the policing side. I like the idea that we all put things into a set format and talk about fish we know and love. But what if someone decides to post the kind of article I dealt with last year - sincere, well meaning and chock full of confidently repeated untrue stuff? That article was wrong in ways that would have harmed someone else's hobby if they had accepted it. Its info would have caused the death of fish, which in did in the writer's case.

That writer was planning an entire series of articles for the site. Again, without a single bad motive, but without any knowledge. Confidence? You bet. An editor would have to reject the work, as the writer took the 'my opinion is as legit as your science' line. If there is no one willing to be the baddie, then we create a library of alternative reality, with a lot of potential for bad blood.

I hate being the baddie.

 

[Coryking]

I guess what worries me is the policing side. I like the idea that we all put things into a set format and talk about fish we know and love. But what if someone decides to post the kind of article I dealt with last year - sincere, well meaning and chock full of confidently repeated untrue stuff? That article was wrong in ways that would have harmed someone else's hobby if they had accepted it. Its info would have caused the death of fish, which in did in the writer's case.

That writer was planning an entire series of articles for the site. Again, without a single bad motive, but without any knowledge. Confidence? You bet. An editor would have to reject the work, as the writer took the 'my opinion is as legit as your science' line. If there is no one willing to be the baddie, then we create a library of alternative reality, with a lot of potential for bad blood.

I hate being the baddie.

As I suggested limit the people who can post to only certain trusted members. We could also set up a team of volunteers that should inspect all articles before posting, this team could make certain changes and corrections, basically act a moderators for the index. One of my favourite sayings is you must be cruel to be kind thus I don't mind being the baddie. If this idea does go ahead I volunteer to be the baddie.

please don't judge me, I know I'm weird

 

[GaryE]

And the Coryking says "off with his headline!"

I suggest all interested look at the section in question over the next few days, and then if we want, we can start adding.

 

[Back in the fold]

I like the idea that we all put things into a set format and talk about fish we know and love.



I hate being the baddie.

Yes , that is what is needed , a set format . Basic information about water parameters , suggested aquarium size , adult size of fish , origin of the species - stuff like that and of course a good picture of both sexes . The moderators should have the power to edit and the posters should acknowledge that from the outset .
And Gary ? I think you like being the baddie . You banished all talk about aquarium salt from this forum and I don’t think it bothered you a bit .

 

[Ceez]

As I suggested limit the people who can post to only certain trusted members. We could also set up a team of volunteers that should inspect all articles before posting, this team could make certain changes and corrections, basically act a moderators for the index. One of my favourite sayings is you must be cruel to be kind thus I don't mind being the baddie. If this idea does go ahead I volunteer to be the baddie.

please don't judge me, I know I'm weird

I kind of respectfully disagree. Limiting knowledge based on an arbitrary number of posts or activity may keep good useful information out of the loop. There are many members that post regularly and I would venture to say many more that are active and hardly post at all but when they do it's pertinent. Armed with a solid team to edit any written info before it ever makes the page really takes care of misinformation on its own merit.